In article <atnl42hb8l1ups9sjmiqfa2iemd6to7hka@4ax.com>,
can_o_worms <can_o_worms@bogus.com> wrote:

My approach to wars is based on moral reasoning though, I have to admit,
probably flawed moral reasoning. I am not opposed to ALL wars. For
instance, I would see the US get involved in Sudan by wiping out the
Janjaweed militias and arming the villagers of Darfur with rocket
launchers. But that's not a case of starting a war. Starting a war
is something we ought to do only after exhausting all possiblity of
a peaceful settlement. That's why I opposed the war in Iraq and it's
why I oppose military intervention in Iran. Even though I would
find personal gratification to see the Iranian theocracy put up
against a wall and shot.

I'm patient to let someone else do that task without our help
though whether it ever happened or not. That would be the
historical paleoconsevative position.

Yes it would. But I don't think it's moral to sit out a genocide.

Any largely political opposition
from the rest of them must be couched in largely moral terms to satisfy
this sub-group.

There are few absolute pacifists. Perhaps many of them are Democrats.
I'm fairly certain none of them are Republicans. I know a good number
of them are Greens and Independents.

Not sure if I've seen that many absolute ones even when perusing
CounterPunch.

I would say your veiws are pretty common.

On Sat, 22 Apr 2006 15:12:42 -0400, "Harvey"
<researchermd@netscape.net> wrote:


(snip old stuff)

Gee... MoveOn has now officially been out-whined. Didn't think
that
was
possible.

Did you consider MoveOn opposition to the Iran War ?

I don't know much about them but have never considered
the Democrats opposition to any war.

They'll largely support or oppose any particular war for largely
political reasons, depending on whether they're in or out of power.
If
you think that's the author's point, fine. If it is, he doesn't
express it very clearly, and chooses rather to launch an elaborate
nitpicking diatribe based on possible interpretations of shades of
meaning, knowing very well that there isn't much meaning there in
the first place.

It's clear to me......the Dems are War Party # 2 occasionally
masquerading as an "antiwar" party. They are all for a preemptive
strike so long as the unlikely nuclear option is not used......Keeps
those big donor security-Democrat donors onboard.

CounterPunch has a divergence of opinions and are always
more realpolitic than Democrat websights.

That's why I peruse them and disseminate stuff from there
though I vote Libertarian rather than Geeen.

That is whining.

The problem for Dems is that they have the misfortune to have in
their
ranks many more people whose opposition to war is based on moral
reasoning. Any war is immoral to these. Any largely political
opposition from the rest of them must be couched in largely moral
terms to satisfy this sub-group.

More whiney blather.

But not effective at anything but ineffectively pandering
to both the antiwar left, right and middle who will continue
to split votes between Greens, Libertarians and Nader.

Are you a sceered o' them Mullahs and want the Pres to
launch an attack at his discretion ?

I think them Mullahs armed with nukes would be sceery, sure. Any
creed-thumping fanatics, including ourselves, with the capacity to
kill millions in an instant to satisfy whatever the creed might be
is
mighty sceery. Were I in them Mullah's position I'd be working
as hard as I could to develop them, too.

Having 140,000 U.S. troops cooling their heels on their border
might encourage them to want a nuke or three I would imagine.

The Mideast hot air (meant for the edification of their domestic
audience) doesn't worry me any.

I take it you be mighty brave and ain't sceered o' that at all. I'm
impressed.

Well I don't live in Israel and so a nuclear standoff between the
Mullahs and Israel doesn't worry me as much as idiodic U.S. pols
who are now in the business of defending Israel at our expense.

I grew up during the Cuban missle crises in a town with both a
SAC base and a nuclear weapons factory. How worried do you
think I should be for whatever Iran can feild ?

Basing your personal threat element on this past experience causes you
to create some false premises IMO. That Israel is the only target of
the
Mullahs is one.

They aren't even much of a threat to Israel considering
Israel's retaliatory capabilities......Nothing to get hysterical
about yet unless we start ***** with them.

That delivery of a nuclear device by air is the only
likely method of transport is another. That your bodily destruction by
one is all that you need be concerned about is still another.

I don't see Iran looking for trouble (so long as Israel doesn't
go on any more opportune Lebanon land grabs) except to
fund Shia political movements that we and Israel have now
made possible by Israel's intervening in Lebanon and our
imbecilic Middle East democracy spreading adventure in
multi-ethnic Iraq.

I don't support an attack at this time, no. I support pretending
that
the UN isn't a dysfunctional zoo for a while to buy time.

I doubt if China and Russia will see it in their interest to go
along
with sanctions or possibly even U.S. oil interests if the sanctions
include oil. If the U.N. were actually functioning as anything but
an ineffective complaint department for third world countries it
might worry me cause that would probably leave them working
for us and our federeral government ain't exactly functional as
any onlooker can see.

Of course China and Russia won't see it as in their interest.

I think that their recent joint military exercises pretty much
makes their point on that......another example of how our
foreign policy of "regime change" as formalized by Clinton
towards Iraq in '98 is counterproductive to our interests.

And I think it's far more likely that a UN that functioned as an
effective complaint department for third world countries would end in
our working for them, not the other way around. If you think our
government isn't functional, and I tend to agree to a large extent...
look at theirs and compare.

We've already signed too many U.N. treaties which we
now, unfortunately, are obligated to honor according to
our constitution.......not that we actually do as evidenced
by the recent Iraq invasion......says a lot about the clout
of the "World Government".

I'm not too worried about being occupied by the U.N.
until I see them occupy Darfur Sudan or any other place
where genocide is ongoing.

One thing I have to acknowledge though : UNSCOM
inspections worked (probably because they are devoid
of windbag politicos) and I believe that we could make
IAEA inspections work if the Bush administration (and
U.S. television punditry) just toned down the public
rhetoric in behalf of gullible donors and voters and
stopped trying to set Iran up for a possible future
regime change (at least they make it appear so)

Going to the UN, Security Council included, is simply expressing a
depth
of concern along what has become the customary lines of expressing
them.
It has nothing to do with what action is and is not eventually taken.
Nor should it.

As I recall reading though, that is the preliminary step for
sanctions . I'm still trying to figure how oil interests are
supposed to profit from any war with Iran as Chomsky
and Airhead America keep implying . I'm no beancounter
but am thinking that the only way Halliburton makes money
in Iraq yet is from the taxpayer funded handouts they receive
there.....hell they are still reluctant to send their employees
there.

Gotta go to work until noon pac time......till then.

You have my sympathy.

Gotta mow the yard now .....whine whine ;-)





--

The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy

John J. Mearsheimer
University of Chicago - Department of Political Science

Stephen M. Walt
Harvard University - John F. Kennedy School of Government

http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011