We supported (if that's the word) Saddam in the 70's because he wasn't a Commie - our track record of backing dictators as bulwarksagainst the Reds is a common thread of US diplomacy. Regrettable perhaps, but simply something that we had to do for most of the Cold War. We supported him in the 80's as he was warring with Iran, then Public Enemy #1 after the hostage incident.

Iraq is the keystone now, though it wasn't then. Iran, then, was still in the honeymoon period of it's Anti-Shah revolution, firmly and (seemingly) forever in the grasp of the mullahs. Not so today.

Once Iran and Iraq go democratic and pro-Western, the rest of the oil theocracies become irrelevant. With our increased trade with the Soviets (another factor that has changed since the Bad Ol' Days) we can tell the Saudis to go take a flying fuck at a rollin' donut. That sorry-ass regime goes down hard once they cease to reap all that oil money, imploded by internal insurrection.

em, perhaps you didn't explicitly ask for a justification, to me it seemed that one way to reply to your litany of the pain and the suffering it would cause would be to show the more happy results of the conflict.

Having said that, this line seems to be asking the question... (your quotes in a nice peaceful blue for the balance of this message :-)

the question is really if it is a necessary evil... which consensus might say yes to...

I read this, due to your choice of the words "if" and "might" here, signify that you're not 100% convinced the case is made.

when you think of going into war... do you put yourselves in the shoes of the person just like you in the country we will attack... meaning... how would you feel if a big nation attacked your country and cut out your water and power and ripped off the limbs of your grandmother (seriously)?
what would you do with the feelings of anger and the urge to retaliate and to strike back and "get" us back?

The short answer is no. I mostly have been thinking about what Saddam and his troops wil do. I thought, too, about what the reaction of the Iraqi people as a whole might be, and I think I was pretty clear with my predictions there in the original essay, to wit, they will be very grateful.

after the bombing and we "show" them... then what? do we also help to mend the broken families? feed the babies? fix the hospitals? etc?

Of course. We always, as a nation, have, and always will, I suspect. Can you spell Marshall Plan?

You cannot be arguing that there is anyone anywhere in the States, from whatever political persuasion, that is advocating us just going in there, bombing them back into the Stone Age, and walking away from the rubble, are you? Because if you're not, that seems to be sort of a pointless question.

i guess my question is, for the pro-war people, where do you believe our responsibilites lie in helping the people get back on their feet?

See above. I don't think it will take long in this case. The Iraqis are relatively educated, and have oil to use as a springboard to building a diverse free market economy.

i ask these quesions because, just as innocent people were killed in the twin towers, so will very innocent people be killed in future wars. and just as we are so pissed off and want to retaliate, what would stop the other nation from wanting to retaliate and "show" us?

Lots of people, of varying degrees of innocence, are always getting killed, sometimes in wars, and sometimes for the lack of them. Thousands of Kurds, as an example, have died trying to rebel against Saddam. We have a choice - will it be our innocent people that get killed, or theirs? I vote theirs any day.

Another group of people I've thought about are our troops, many of whom will die in this conflict. That's why I think we should wage this war with overwhelming force. It will end up minimizing casualties on both sides.

where does it end? or does it end?

I don't think it ever ends. While we wish that it were different, war will alway be with us, at least until such point as we evolve into something else. The only real moral options that we have are to fight them as infequently and humanely as possible. Sometimes, to be humane means to be very ruthless.

I give you an example. In WWII, after the battle of Okinawa, the allies began to get some inkling of the scale of killing on both sides that would result from an invasion of the Japanese mainland. Estimates were in the millions, and it would have taken months, if not years of fighting. We dropped the atomic bombs, killing tens of thousands, most of them innocent. That broke the will of the military leaders to continue the fight.

and where is our responsibility to the innocent people who are killed/hurt/hampered etc?

Our responsibility is to minimise their suffering, and help them rebuild a free society.

how do you heal a country after it has been devestated by war so that its people are not filled with hatred and perpetuate hundreds of more wars?

ScottR pretty much answered this on the list - summary: the way we did after WWII. You assume, marya, that the conquered in any war will automatically carry seeds of anger and resentment that will perpetuate the cycle. This simply isn't true. Hell, the Vietnamese people don't hate us after all we did to them - ask anyone that's travelled there lately. I used to work with a few former VC back in my wrench monkey days. They hated us so much they moved here.

People with full bellies and a choice about how to live their lives don't forment war. Give the Iraqi people open government and a decent economy, and they'll be our best friends.

how do you stop us from getting to this place again, where people hate us and want to blow up our buildings?

I'm not sure that's ever going to be possible, so long as people cling to the superstition of religion, especially those that claim to have the One True Way. Islamic fundamentalism will continue to be a source of suffering for the world, until such time as it either withers away (not likely) or evolves to a more moderate, tolerant faith.

finally, why do these countries hate us? how did we get here?
is it all their fault? partially their fault?
is it all our fault? partially our fault?

It's been observed that the people that tend to hate us most are not necessarily the ones that live in nations that are our "enemies." The Saudi leaders, for example, love us much more than their people do. They see us as accomplices in helping the House of Saud exploit them. Sadly, they are right. Saddam surely hates us. I will be very much surprised if his people do.

The radical Islamicists do not hate us for what we do, they hate us for what we are. The only way we could ever make them happy would be to convert to their faith and live the way they want us to. I don't think we are willing to do that. so until one side or the other caves, it's going to be a fight. That's not the way I'd like it to be, but that's the way it is.

They hate us the way you hate, say, the KKK, or child molesters. Our very existence is an affront to their notions of right and wrong. They hate us because you, a woman, don't walk around in a veil. You are a Buddhist. You can drive a car, drink beer, and hold a job. You believe in free speech, and freedom of religion. (Did you know that you, an infidel, cannot even travel to Mecca or Medina?)

In their eyes, we are a cesspool of iniquity, an insult to Allah. There can be no negotiation, (other than as a ploy to gain advantage) no peace with the infidel. It's their way of life or ours, simple as that, and they're the ones that have set the boundaries of the conflict. The day they flew the planes into the WTC is the day that they lost their right to peacefully co-exist with us.

If I were a believer in the Xian god myself, which you know I am not, I might argue that some of those fundamentalist preachers were right - God did send those planes to punish us, though not for the reason that those whackjobs cited. It wasn't because we tolerate homosexuality, drink, watch "Sex in the City," or ignore the bible, etc.

It's because we have sat over here across the oceans, all safe, fat and happy with our cable tv, AOL chatrooms, running water, and air-conditioned SUVs, congratulating ourselves on having won the Cold War, and putting an "end to history."

Meanwhile, all aross the globe, people have been living poor and downtrodden under miserable, repressive, dictatorships, and reactionary theocracies, and we have ignored their plight, because we had no over-riding "national interests" at stake. Right now, Robert Mugabe is intentionally starving to death those parts of his country that voted against him, by witholding food shipments. What are we doing about it? Not a fucking thing. Why? You tell me. Maybe we're reluctant to be seen as too imperialistic, or just too busy to be bothered.

it hurts to think of these things, i think. so we resist asking ourselves the questions, pondering the answers.

I disagree. I think about these things all the time, and I think a lot of other people do, too.

I think you worry about the pain and suffering that happens when we fix things. I worry about the pain and suffering that happen when we don't.

Well, em, one of the basic tenets of Islam is that success on the battlefield is directly proportional to your adherence to the word of Allah. So, if you get your ass kicked, it's because Allah willed it so, as you were doing something wrong.

Hopefully, the defeat they're about to suffer will be a big clue-by-four over the noggin, telling them that the way they've been proceeding isn't the right one, and lead to a more tolerant flavor of the faith. It wasn't too long ago that the Xians were all into converting by the sword, etc.

We've pretty much handled the "horrors of home" here in the US, unless you know of some mullahs over here making folks conform to their notions of religion by running around and beating people with sticks.

My idea of a negotiated, diplomatic solution to Saddam is to marshal our troops on the border, then offer him the chance to surrender, and live out his natural life in relatively comfortable exile. If not, take him down.

War is sometimes, regrettably, the only solution. Simplistic, maybe, but sometimes solutions are simple.

Since you don't like my plan, I'd love to hear yours.

To say that because the US is not a perfect utopia of a society, we are disqualified from attempting to unseat a genocidal maniac such as Saddam, is a completely baseless, and to my mind, unethical argument. To extend this reasoning to it's logical conclusion, were I walking down the street, and saw, say, a young girl getting kidnapped, I should refrain from stopping her attacker, unless I am myself without reproach. To my mind, the girl might appreciate the aid, even if I were say, a member of the Klan, or a drug dealer.

Even flawed people can perform moral, or even heroic actions. To evaluate the morality of an action by the character of the actor is bootless. To require perfection in an actor before it can act is unsane. That would mean that no nation could ever do anything, for no nation can ever have solved all of it's problems, or will, at least not so long as that nation is composed of human beings and not angels.

If you do feel this way, I'd ask you the following - should the US have come to the aid of Europe in WWII? At the time, our economy was in tatters, still suffering from the Depression, with rates of unemployment, poverty, etc., much higher than they are now. Furthermore, we were still for all intents and purposes, a segregated nation, the Klan was still lynching in the South. Even the armed forces displayed the segregation of the society, until the post -war period.

With those flaws, perhaps we should have sat on the sidelines, told Europe to fend for itself, and ignored the attack on Pearl Harbor, because we were not of the requisite moral standing needed to interfere in the destinies of other nations. Yeahright.

Sure, there are vestiges of the KKK, and a tiny minority of other fringe groups here. To be an American gives no one some sort of immunity from whacko political, racist, or religious views. But we do allow them to hold those views, so long as they continue to leave the folks who don't alone. (Contrast this to say, the Saudi mut'awiin, running around clubbing folks that don't meet the dress code) Freedom and diversity of opinion is tolerated in this country, unlike most of the world. Perhaps it would be more palatable to you that we have them all tossed into jail, or shot. That seems to be the modus operandi of the rest of the world.

As for those other areas you mention, drug addiction and homelessness, they are certainly not unique to the US, or I think even particularly relevant to the topic discussed. Saddam need to be removed from power. Bums are sleeping under bridges in Houston. The connection is? We shouldn't remove Saddam because of the bums?

My final point - if living under the Pax Americana disturbs you to the point that you need to resist, than you're late getting started. Canada's been under that umbrella ever since you've been alive, I think.

I can't imagine where you got the idea I was saying you don't have a right to aid and assist anyone/anything in trouble. It doesn't require perfection to be helpful - nor should that EVER be the standard. You read _way_more into my comment than I intened. And that Saddam needs wiping off the face of the earth might be a notion that is somewhat universally accepted, in my country and yours. I could not (not remotely equipped by temperament, education, ability or interest) argue that point. I will accept that it is so - and I might even accept that the Americans are the folks to do it.

The connection to a bum in Houston and Saddam is money. Every dollar you spend on a world view is one less you spend on a home view - and while you're running about making the world safer/better place the bum starves to death. Millions and millions are saved and one dies. But that one is an American. That was my point in mentioning the "horrors at home".

This is the point in the discussion where I walk away - because I can't decide which sort of position I actually have. Would I save my own child or the busload of children? My own, no doubt about it. None at all - that's my JOB. (Which leads to the discussion about the JOB of governments) Would I save my own child or kill Saddam (were that the bizzarely unlikely choice) - again, I would save my child.

But that's other stuff.

I was responding, specifically, to the _term_ "Pax Americana" because it sounds so ... um ... maniacal. Like Jihad. Madison Avenue stuff. GI Joe. Like that. Very grand.

I don't believe many non Americans think of America as being particularly "peaceful" was my notion, I suppose. Your way of life is not _necessarily_ an ideal (and is not necessarily not an ideal, I am making an argumentative point).

You are mistaken, I believe, in your assertion that I have been living under anything resembling a "Pax Americana". We are very different nations, with very different sensibilities, populations and military strength. We don't require/use the protection many Americans think we need/use - notwithstanding your ability to offer and our need to use it should circumstances become different. But, as circumstances are, we are a peaceful nation without a lot of enemies and thus not a lot of need to exist under any sort of umbrella. We admire ourselves for our differences and our standard is sometimes "American" when we define these differences. Not saying it's right, it just is.

Last I looked we were a part of the British Commonwealth, and if we live under any umbrella (which I might argue in and of itself) it would be that one. (Our 3500+ mile border notwithstanding.)

Anyway, Marcus - you are MUCH better versed in this all than I am - and you are clearly more invested in it emotionally and intellectually. I can't decide whether I envy or pity you (smiling, smiling) but I do know this - I haven't the skills to argue it well enough so I will post my piece(s) and consider myself done in this regard.

Oh - to possess the fire in _your_ belly.

Be well,

Catherine

Every dollar you spend on a world view is one less you spend on a home view - and while you're running about making the world safer/better place the bum starves to death. Millions and millions are saved and one dies. But that one is an American. That was my point in mentioning the "horrors at home".

Well put, C. Reminds me of the abortion argument.

I personally think zealots that blow up abortion clinics in the name of "christianity" are actually not resembeling Jesus at all, and in fact are terrorists and murderers. And isn't the issue of murder what pissed them off in the first place? So I think: "hypocrite!"

BUT, but...

Then, I think, if I were alive in 1939 and I had a gun, and Hitler alone and unsuspecting in a room, would I kill him? Hell yes I would! Murder is wrong unless murder is just.

I do not think killing abortion doctors or patients is just murder. Not at all.

But I can see how the clinic bombing fanatics can think that.

To change the subject...

I love Canada. I hope to visit someday. I see them as "Americans, Light". I see them as my countrymen.

But for you to compare your country's relatively neutral ways to America's political agenda reminds me of something that happened when I was a paramedic.

My preceptor (instructor) was a small, petite blonde woman. We were being threatened by a psychotic, drug numbed seven foot teenager. He was truly a freak of nature.

The big burly firefighters arrived, and my instructor stood behind them and beckoned to the giant psychotic, "YOU WANNA PIECE OF ME? JUST TRY IT!"

It was hilarious.

Reminds me of Canada. And to a lesser extent, Britain. You guys don't have to take the degree of action we do. Because we already TOOK it, and we love Britain and Canada. Ya'll just coast on our coattails.