War and the Left

[SirTweek]

Well of course those are the ones you've seen and heard on the news. For one you live in the US and for two idiots get top priority in news since they have the most extreme views hence the biggest entertainment value. You have to remember the protests were millions upon millions of people this wasn't a few thousand anti-globilization activists and anarchists in Seattle. The protests against the war were frequently the largest in the areas they were that held had ever taken place. This isn't just anti-american zealots and Bush haters people that were previously apolitical went out to march.

If you haven't found any other reasons for the protesters to protest then anti-americanism or that the weapons inspections are working then you haven't looked at the opposing veiwpoint hard enough. I recently read a article by a conservative in the US opposing war and it made a lot of sense. For now I'm staying on the pro-war side but I have read some arguments that have really made me think. I've tried to distance the personalities from the issues but it is hard when you talk to people about it and they start foaming at the mouth that you hate bush just because you even question the war.

It also disturbs me when I hear people make comments such as the ones made about the 'human shields'. Things like the dirty bastards deserve to die, or that they are traitors, of if I was there I'd be dropping the bomb on them. I think the human shields served thier purpouse by bringing ranting scum such as this to the top and into the media. I like to think that most humans are against bloodshed so I try to keep things like these away from my thoughts about war just as the anti-americans rants should not weigh in on anyone's decisions.

[Jack_www]

Well I realize that. If fact I think that I could come up with some agruments on my own that would be pretty good.

I too dont like that humman shield crap. They say they are only their to stop the US from bombing cilivians and cilivian targets, but Saddam will hide millitary equipment with them, but they dont see that. Also Saddam provides a house food and all kinds of things to these "human shields." Doing stuff like that is not such a great idea.

[GePap]

ONe major reason to oppose the war is if you don't think Iraq is the sort of threat made out to be. That invalidates the "pre-emptive" arguments for the war. Also, if you think the US lacks either the will or the support to do a good job in remaking Iraq, then the long-terms consequences to the region form this war could be great, including making weaker, not stronger as the admin. hopes, the voices of Trade liberals and democrats in the reigon while making the Islamist oppositions in the autocratic pro-US states in the region stronger.

Pacifism and leftist critique are not the only reasons to view this war as a dangerous gamble.

[Agathon]

As should be evident from older posts I agree with GePap. No sensible person on the right or left would argue that if Iraq was the great threat it was pointed out to be by the Bushies, that nothing should be done.

The problem is not only that the case has not been made; but that it has been made so poorly that any educated person should be able to see that it isn't the WOMD's or terrorism, it is the simple desire of the US to reshape the region to suit its own interests. That seems to me to be the only reasonable explanation of what is going on.

The US government is in the grip of a bunch of ultraconservative lunatics (check out Wolfowitz's background - he's plain evil, and a f*****g Straussian to boot: all Straussians should be shot) who want to change the world after their own model. Anyone familiar with politics knows that people like this are a disaster waiting to happen.

And I'm not the leftist police. I'm merely pointing out that what counts as far left rhetoric in the US is sometimes a conservative platitude elsewhere. For example, Ralph Nader is regard as an ultra lefty in the US. If you look at his policies it's clear that my home country New Zealand's conservative National Party doesn't have much to disagree with him about.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The US was the bigger stronger nation. They turned aggresive, and that's how Mexico lost their land.

You should get back the money for your history education because you didn't learn JACK!

The US was the WEAKER country at the time. Mexico was considered by every European country to be the favorite. It seemed like another 1812, where the weaker US declared war on the stronger country. When the US won, it was a HUGE shock. Duke of Wellington called Scott's amphibous invasion and march to Mexico City, brilliant military tactics that should be studied in every war college.

[Lincoln]

I would like to ask the anti-war crowd a few questions:

1. How long would you like to keep starving the people of Iraq? A quick war will end the sanctions and feed the people and give them hope of becoming a part of the international community with a real voice.

2. Is it better to torture people for many years or is it better to get the pain over quickly and go on? The war will be painful but is years of pain better?

3. Would you prefer to put a band-aid on a cancer or cut it out inspite of the pain?

4. Where would the inspectors be now if Bush did not threaten war?

5. Now that Saddam is playing games with the inspectors and the international community should the threat be carried out -- or do we just make empty threats (remember question 4)?

6. What exactly is YOUR solution?

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The US was the bigger stronger nation. They turned aggresive, and that's how Mexico lost their land.

You should get back the money for your history education because you didn't learn JACK!

The US was the WEAKER country at the time. Mexico was considered by every European country to be the favorite. It seemed like another 1812, where the weaker US declared war on the stronger country. When the US won, it was a HUGE shock. Duke of Wellington called Scott's amphibous invasion and march to Mexico City, brilliant military tactics that should be studied in every war college.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Thank you for your acknowledgment of your weakness in the history of the Mexican-American War of 1846-48 (and yes, I wrote a paper about it in college) .

[GePap]

Originally posted by Lincoln
I would like to ask the anti-war crowd a few questions:

1. How long would you like to keep starving the people of Iraq? A quick war will end the sanctions and feed the people and give them hope of becoming a part of the international community with a real voice.

The sanctions regime could be ended without a war..and since the oil for food program, nutrition in Iraq has imporved greatly.

2. Is it better to torture people for many years or is it better to get the pain over quickly and go on? The war will be painful but is years of pain better?

Agains, the sanctions regime has little to do with this war.

3. Would you prefer to put a band-aid on a cancer or cut it out inspite of the pain?

Depends on whos' operating. If I feel the surgeon is incompetent, putting a band-aid is probaby safer.

4. Where would the inspectors be now if Bush did not threaten war?

I will grant you that..but threatening war does not mean you have to go along with it at the end.

5. Now that Saddam is playing games with the inspectors and the international community should the threat be carried out -- or do we just make empty threats (remember question 4)?

What's the rush.. saddam may be "playing games" but is is getting weaker with time anyway. It all depends on what game you think we are playing.

6. What exactly is YOUR solution?

Put the war off for a few months while the president and POwell do some actual face to face diplomacy with everyone involved and do a little thing called diplomacy (instead of bribes and threats) to convince everyone that they do know what is going on and don't have their head's up their ass.

Oh Imran.. what the hell have you been smoking anyway? Mexico stronger than the US is 1846..thats a laugh.. i guess having a bigger population, a bigger economy and better technology makes you the "weaker"
party were you come from? Which country had just lost a war to Texas? Wasn't it Mexico in 1836? Oh yeah, and it was the Mexicans who claimed that they would keep European powers out of the Hemisphere....
I would like you to find ONE SINGLE article in which anyone in the US in 1846 saw itself as the weaker party. Good luck.

As for Wellington: I think what he found surprising was that an ambitious amphibious landing worked. that is like saying that because somene was surprised Inchon worked, NK was the more powerful state.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Mexico stronger than the US is 1846..thats a laugh.. i guess having a bigger population, a bigger economy and better technology makes you the "weaker"

Compare military strength (the real arbiter of power). Mexico had a LARGE standing army. US army had 20,000 men at the time, and increase in volunteers did little to augment the ranks.

Mexico was seen as MUCH more powerful at the time. It was a total shock that the illtrained small US Army would humiliate Mexico that badly.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Agathon
As should be evident from older posts I agree with GePap. No sensible person on the right or left would argue that if Iraq was the great threat it was pointed out to be by the Bushies, that nothing should be done.

The problem is not only that the case has not been made; but that it has been made so poorly that any educated person should be able to see that it isn't the WOMD's or terrorism, it is the simple desire of the US to reshape the region to suit its own interests. That seems to me to be the only reasonable explanation of what is going on.

just to say that I agree with GePap too

[GePap]

As we know today, size of standing army is no measure of national power, plus the US army was better equiped and better trained. That a bunch of European pundits believed the size of the of the Mexican army was what made it more powerful does not make it so.. unless you think what European pundits think it the measure of truth.

Oh , and what about adding the Navies? After all, the rgeat power of the time, Britian, had a small army compared to any Continental power, but a great Navy. How big was the Mexican navy at the time?

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Thank you for your acknowledgment of your weakness in the history of the Mexican-American War of 1846-48 (and yes, I wrote a paper about it in college) .

1848 was only 27 years after the Mexican revolution and Mexico had not established political unity yet.

[DuncanK]

Imran,

.....

This is going to be one of those discussions isn't it.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by GePap
Oh , and what about adding the Navies? After all, the rgeat power of the time, Britian, had a small army compared to any Continental power, but a great Navy. How big was the Mexican navy at the time?

Are navies really relevent when fighting a war with a country that you have a border with?