🚀 go-pugleaf

Hi Herb,

   Could you clear some things up for me?

On Thu, 19 Dec 2002, Herb Martin wrote:

> "Joseph Crowe" <jcrowe@io.com> wrote
> >   1. Rebuttal - had Wilson not gotten the U.S. involved in the first
> >      conflict (after outright lying about never sending our boys over
> >      there), then events leading to the rise of the Nazis may never have
> >      even occurred.  Even at that, do you believe that the U.S. government
> >      has a mandate, either constitutionally (no) or ethically (no) to
> >      correct all of the conflicts in the world?  If so, please explain
> >      how FDR and Stalin were such bossom buddies..after all, Stalin had
> >      many more people killed than did Hitler.
> 
> Possibly true but more probably false, and our
> behavior was NEVER the proximate cause.

   What are you addressing here?  What is possibly true
but more probably false?

> The proximate cause was the behavior of the
> British (including starvation blockade of Germany
> even after the Armistice) and the French, in
> forcing the "Treaty of Versailles" and driving
> Germany into rampant inflation and continuing to
> take territory as "punishment" for failure to pay
> even when the Germans had NOTHING.  Also
> note this was codified as part of the "League
> of Nations."

   My contention was more closely related to the idea
that had the U.S. not become embroiled in the war, the
Brits and French would probably have been unable to do
the things they did to Germany.
> 
> We refused to sign the Treaty (never did) and
> join the League even though we proposed both
> ideas.

    Yes, both true and neither is relevent I think.  Do
you see the relevence?
> 
> >   2. Rebuttal - the scope of the military is to defend the country,
> >      period.  Bush's current strategies should have him impeached, tried
> >      for treason and punished accordingly.  The current economic woes
> 
> Can't be illegal in and of itself since Congress voted
> to support it.  The U.N. has voted it too.

   The case can be made that powers Bush has assumed both
contradict and egregiously so various subsets of the U.S.
Constitution, especially the first ten amendments.  Given
that Bush swore on his honor to uphold the U.S.C. as the
supreme law of the land, I think a good case could be
made from an ethical PoV that he should be impeached. Of
course, it will not happen, but one can always dream.
> 
> People keep missing this; especially those who just
> LOVE to criticise the President or ANY Republican.
> Let's see, no war yet, and President Bush got Sodamn
> Insane to agree to inspections.

   I can't speak for anybody else, but I don't criticize
Bush because he's a Republican.  I criticize him because he
strikes me as an unethical tyrant waiting in the wings.
> 
> Wow, Clinton couldn't do that.

   Clinton would not do it because it was not a political
expedient to his political ambitions.  Also, he was not
as connected to "big oil" as Bush.
> 
> So, he is DEFENDING the country.  Or do you have
> some idiotic idea that we can only defend when the
> enemy crosses into our territory.  IF so, just stand
> over there away from everyone else while Sodamn
> Insane and the North Koreans learn to lob ballistic
> nuclear missiles at you.

   Given that even our own intelligence knows that 
Hussein does not have the capability to launch an
attack even on Israel, your assertion makes no sense.
The only significant military power in the region is
Israel, and though you call Hussein a madman, he's lucid
enough not to screw with the only nuclear powerhouse in
the region.  If Bush were really that worried about the
threat of WMD, he'd be takin on North Korea, but wait,
NK has no oil.....
> 
> >   3. Rebuttal - military and defense spending is a net loss to the
> >      economy.  If we had a free market, we would not have the problems
> >      we now see in the economy.  Military and other spending does not
> >      buy our economy anything.  It merely consumes a much higher
> >      percentage of private sector capital that cannot then be reinvested
> >      to really improve the economy.
> 
> Not strictly true.  True for bombs not for everything.
> Still cheaper and more HONORABLE than another
> "World Trade Center" coming down.

   From a purely tactical PoV, the WTC was small potatoes.
Further, Hussein had nothing to do with that.  Hussein
heads the only secular government in the entire region.
> 
> Think it through before you embarrass yourself again.

   I'm not embarassed.  I'm trying to get a feeling of
consistency in your position and I can't find it.  You
say some things that make sense and others that are 
really difficult to take seriously.  What I do see is
the support of the neo-cons' idea that no matter what the
heck happens, we're going to war and we're going to kick
Saddam's butt.  Like many have observed, regardless of what
evidence the Iraqis post, their goose is cooked.....George
is way too hot for a war.  Nothing will deter him, or the
neocons who are pulling his strings.
> 
> >    This is not.  If anything, the War of 1812 proved how difficult it is
> > for even a powerful nation to win a war overseas.  It ended up in
> > stalemate, which was to the advantage of the U.S.  All in all, England
> > never had a chance.
> 
> Sure, like D-Day, WW1, the 1st Gulf War proved
> it can be done by those who understand the risks,
> and the methods of success.

   The more proper comparison would be the longterm non-viability
of the various colonial systems.  When the U.S. installs its
puppet regime in Iraq, you don't believe that we will be leaving
anytime soon do you?  Some well-armed contingent has to stay and
make certain the the Iraqis obey the will of the U.S. government.

> 
> >   Our military has the capability to defend the U.S.
> > right now and is in no way ill-prepared or minimalist.  What the U.S.
> > military is not prepared for, but which Bush favors anyway, is to go and
> > occupy a significant part of the rest of the globe.  Every friggin'
> > empire in history has learned that lesson and now Bush's will too.
> 
> You don't even know the meaning of "empire", do you?

  As a matter of fact, I do.  

> Were the U.S. interested in Empire, we would own
> 3/4 of the world already.  We have given almost
> that much BACK to the PEOPLE who live there
> when we freed them from oppression and tyranny.

   The open will to empire has just surfaced.  The
U.S. record in ethical terms WRT armed conflict 
is far from as pure as you indicate.  But, behind
the scenes, the U.S. has pretended to empire for
the last sixty years.  It's just done through 
different types of coercion, bribes, payoffs and
support of terrorists when it suits government 
agenda....of course, when they fight on U.S. payroll
they magically morph from terrorist to freedom fighter.
That's how it happened with Hussein, Osama bin Laden
and the like.  U.S. government policies create these
messes and then ream the taxpayers the second time
around to fund cleaning up the messes.  Don't you
think it would be a better option to not create the
mess in the first place???
> 
> Think it through.

  I have.  I just reached different conclusions than
you did.  This week, I'm still allowed to do that,
despite Ashcroft's wishes.  Next year, I'm not so
sanguine about.
> 
> Herb Martin

-- 
Joseph Crowe