収束ゾーンでのライフ: Life in the Convergence Zone

Do you know how deeply you are trivializing the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot, each of whom murdered millions to tens of millions of people, by treating Bush's allowance of (relatively mild) torture as their moral equivalent?

Their ghosts thank you.

From:

solarbird

At least you're calling it torture. And fuck you on the "relatively mild" part, and also on the "trivialisation" bullshit; if we're copying the fucking Gestapo, it's not fucking trivial. The Allies excuted people for this same "relatively mild" torture after World War II. So either it's serious or we owe a lot of Nazi party family members an apology. Pick one.

From:

At least you're calling it torture.

What else should I call it?

And fuck you on the "relatively mild" part ...

It is "relatively mild." Why, do you imagine that all torture is equally harmful to the victim?

and also on the "trivialisation" bullshit; if we're copying the fucking Gestapo, it's not fucking trivial.

That does not follow: simply because we do some things which the Gestapo also did does not make us as bad as them. The Gestapo, for instance, put people in prison cells and kept records on them; so does any American prison system. Does that make the American prison systems as bad as the Gestapo prison systems?

You're also ignoring the issue of scale. We may have murdered a dozen or so of our prisoners (probably by accideent) -- the Nazis and Soviets murdered tens of millions of their prisoners. That makes a rather big difference.

From:

How many people does a government have to torture before government sanctioned torture becomes wrong?

From:

How many people does a government have to torture before government sanctioned torture becomes wrong?

One.

However, scale still does matter. Otherwise, all governments become equally guilty (because all governments of any size and duration have tortured some people at some time, and hence since every government becomes as "guilty" as any other, there is no incentive for any to moderate its conduct.

Do you really want to argue that America is as bad as Saddam Hussein's Iraq, or Hitler's Germany? When you make this argument, you are also implicitly arguing that Saddam's Iraq or Hitler's Germany was as good as America: you erode the basis for the condemnation of the truly atrocious regimes.

Which is, of course, exactly what their apologists desire.

From:

Yeah yeah.. straw-men. Cute.

Whatever.

If you trust a government with that kind of power that's your idiocy.

From:

Yeah yeah.. straw-men. Cute.

That's not a "straw man," that's the specific problem with failing to take scale into account when you compare atrocities -- it destroys your ability to condemn the really bad regime's atrocities because you are condemning all regimes simultaneously -- hence your condemnation is meaningless.

If you trust a government with that kind of power that's your idiocy.

Every government on Earth already has "that kind of power," and if you don't see that, that's your blindness.

From:

So we've established that you trust your government to torture people and I see elsewhere that you also think genocide can be acceptable sometimes as well as long as it's our government doing it.

Do you think it's okay for a government to raise income taxes to pay for these?

Where's your limit for acceptable government behavior? I would think even you would have to draw a line somewhere.

From:

So we've established that you trust your government to torture people ...

I trust that they will. I wish they wouldn't.

... you also think genocide can be acceptable sometimes as well as long as it's our government doing it.

No, I don't. I said that America has committed genocide, and so have most Great Powers at one time or another.

You are confusing what I acknowledge to have happened with what I deem "acceptable." I happen to be aware that I cannot change reality by choosing to find something that has already happened to be "unacceptable."

Do you think it's okay for a government to raise income taxes to pay for these?

No. But I do think that it's okay for a government to raise income taxes to pay for a war.

Where's your limit for acceptable government behavior? I would think even you would have to draw a line somewhere.

What makes you think I'm particularly tolerant of government misdeeds?

I am merely historically informed, which makes me aware that misdeeds are more common than you realize.

In short, I am more cynical than you on this issue.

You imagine that we can change the nature of warfare by finding atrocity "unacceptable," while I am aware that all we can do is try to keep it down to the lowest level consistent with victory.

From:

"You imagine that we can change the nature of warfare by finding atrocity "unacceptable," while I am aware that all we can do is try to keep it down to the lowest level consistent with victory."

Here you're just making things up again. I never said anything of the sort.

How do you intend to "try to keep it down to the lowest level consistent with victory?" Is there a point where you would consider impeaching a president for authorizing torture and genocide? You haven't made that clear yet. You've just made it clear that if there is such a point you don't think we're there yet.

From:

How do you intend to "try to keep it down to the lowest level consistent with victory?"

Historically, we have done so by overtly forbidding it, while covertly practicing it at great need. The main difference in this war is that Bush has been willing to authorize it overtly.

Is there a point where you would consider impeaching a president for authorizing torture and genocide?

Of course.

I don't think that Bush has authorized torture on a scale and severity worth impeaching him for. Bush has not authorized "genocide" at all -- America hasn't committed genocide since the 19th century.

You might be able to make an excellent case for retroactively impeaching Andrew Jackson, though. Google on "Trail of Tears."

You haven't made that clear yet. You've just made it clear that if there is such a point you don't think we're there yet.

Indeed. Why would you think we were, taking into account the historical and current behavior of other combatants in wartime?

From:

Once again you're restating that you don't think the president has done anything to warrant impeachment.

What standard are you using to decide when he has?

What standard do you think our country is using to decide when other countries have committed war crimes against us?

You still haven't explained this yet.

From:

Once again you're restating that you don't think the president has done anything to warrant impeachment.

For once, you've actually stated something I said correctly. Congratulations! *blows party horn*

What standard are you using to decide when he has?

"High crimes and misdemeanors" is the Constitutional one -- I don't see where he's committed impeachable acts by that definition, as historically applied. If you think he has, could you explain what these acts are?

We could also compare his conduct to those of other wartime Presidents. Has Bush behaved worse than (say) Lincoln in the Civil War, Wilson in World War One, or Roosevelt and Truman in World War Two? If you think he has, explain how (with reference to the better conduct of other wartime Presidents).

You may not be aware that the US Constitution, in the main body, has a provision for the President to assume emergency powers in wartime. This is the equivalent (though less absolute) of the Roman "Dictatorship" (please look up the Roman Republic's constitution before you misunderstand the term in this context). A President in wartime is empowered to do much which would be unconstitutional in peacetime; there is an extensive literature discussing just which actions are permissible.

What standard do you think our country is using to decide when other countries have committed war crimes against us?

The common Laws of War, including the Geneva Conventions. By the way, Al Qaeda violated the Laws of the War on the very first day of the war, by murdering captured civilians under their power.

You still haven't explained this yet.

This is the first time you asked.

From:

From:

"As far as the law goes, Bush could douse them in kerosene and use them to light White House lawn parties, and he'd be doing nothing against the Laws of War."

Wow.

I hadn't read that.

There's no need to waste anymore time on this.

I'm sorry that it upsets you so much that the US Constitution and the Geneva Convention don't actually say what you think they say. Mind you, I'd argue that burning francs-tireurs alive would be immoral ... it's just not illegal.

You seem to think that acknowledging this makes me a bad person. You are, of course, welcome to refuse to acknowledge whatever realties personally upset you ...

... hey, here's a thought. You could act to get the laws changed!

Nah, getting disgusted at anyone who points unpleasant things out to you is much more rational!

And I did notice that you didn't answer any of the points I raised on the other, substantative argument.

Unsurprisingly, since what you've just done is called "squirting ink" -- you're professing moral disgust to avoid answering difficult questions. It's a common tactic, among the outargued.

From:

I didn't argue anything.

I was asking you questions to get a better idea of your position. You've been trying to invent an argument to win.

You did a better job of showing where you stand in other threads.

There's no point in asking anymore questions.

From:

And if it makes you feel like you've won something:

You can fuck off now.

From:

solarbird

Yes, and the Gestapo also - also! - ATE FOOD. OMG. The comparison you draw is both benightedly stupid and trivial and I will not entertain it. If you want to make excuses for systematic government torture because it's somehow different, that's something you're going to do, but don't be a wanker about it.

I mean, fucking hell, "I only killed this one guy! Ted Bundy killed a LOT more guys than me! I must be good!" Fuck that.

From:

Yes, and the Gestapo also - also! - ATE FOOD. OMG. The comparison you draw is both benightedly stupid and trivial and I will not entertain it.

Actually, the comparison I drew showed the flaw in your reasoning -- you don't want to "entertain it" because it reveals your error.

America is not like Nazi Germany simply because America tortured some people and so did Nazi Germany. You are completely ignoring the issue of scale, and in doing so are working to the advantage of the truly atrocious regimes, because you are implicitly rating them as "no worse than" modern America.

If you want to ignore scale, go right ahead, but don't expect anyone who knows anything about history -- and the universality of Man's inhumanity of Man -- to take you very seriously when you render such ignorant moral pronouncements.

Guess what: America's done genocide too. And so's Britain, and France. And all under democratic regimes.

Horrors, guess we really are no better than the Nazis, right?

From:

solarbird

Actually, the comparison I drew showed the flaw in your reasoning -- you don't want to "entertain it" because it reveals your error.
No, I didn't entertain it because it's fucking stupid. Did we put Germans on trial for maintaining paperwork? No. Did we put Germans on trial for having jails? No. We put Germans and the collaborators and their allies on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity, and we called it things like war crimes and torture. The bullshit in the pro-torture position is that it's somehow different because it's us, and that's bullshit and I'm calling you on it.

The rest of the material in your reply here is more shit you made up rather than stuff I actually said, so I don't care to reply to it.

From:

solarbird

But I guess really I should be happy that you are admitting outright that it is torture, sponsoured and utilised by the government. That was my real point, after all: that we're using torture now, and that we have an administration that's not only okay with that but being the ones actively promoting it. I mean, all you're arguing about is how much torture the American government is doing, which is rather, as they used to say, like arguing about price.

From:

I mean, all you're arguing about is how much torture the American government is doing, which is rather, as they used to say, like arguing about price.

All we are arguing about when assessing any government is "how much" atrocity it commits. All governments commit some.

And that's a horror truer and deeper than anything I think you've ever faced, because you probably still believe that there are simon-pure "good guys" out there.

Guess what: there aren't.

And guess what: we still have to support some, against others, or the really bad regimes will rule the world.

From:

kathrynt.livejournal.com

And that's a horror truer and deeper than anything I think you've ever faced

on that subject, sir or madam, you are amazingly, incredibly, spectacularly, head-so-far-up-your-ass-you-can-see-out-your-own-mouth wrong.

solarbird has faced and survived shit that would make you stop breathing with trauma.

From:

solarbird

The crux of this reply's argument - the idea at its core - is that to fight monsters, you have to become a monster. There is sufficient history of philosophical debate on this matter - almost all on the, "What, are you out of your fucking mind?" side - that I do not care to deal with it further. You're pro-torture; you're pro-atrocity; you think that's fine, as long as it's your side.

I've dealt with people like you before.

It's why I fight evil rather than justify it. It's why I'm on the other side of this debate than you; because I actually do know what this particular hell looks like. And the idea that you think it helps - with anything - is so fundamentally, existentially wrong that I have no words for how wrong it is.

Torture is not about winning anything in a free country. Torture is not about finding truth. Torture is about destroying people. Torture is about making people say whatever you want them to say. This is orthogonal to truth, and is why torture is the preferred tool of the dictator, and the discarded barbarity of the republic.

Thank you for making clear which side you are on.

From:

The crux of this reply's argument - the idea at its core - is that to fight monsters, you have to become a monster.

Actually, no. My point is that all governemnts already are, to some extent, "monsters," and that one has only a choice of monsters.

In fact, I regard torturing prisoners as generally counterproductive.

From:

solarbird

Actually, no. My point is that all governemnts already are, to some extent, "monsters," and that one has only a choice of monsters.

This is stupid. Governments are collective agents of action. If you want to psychoanalyse the class as a generic individual, you'll find that it's a sociopath. Sociopaths do whatever they thing is 1) in their best interest and 2) that they can get away with.

You're advocating letting them get away with whatever they want, or, at least, keeping your mouth shut when they do things I find monstrous, on the basis that other governments are worse. That's how sociopaths turn into monsters.

By the way, I reject outright the analogy between this war and WWII, WWI, or the US Civil War. I point out that first that those were actual declarations of war, not authorisations to use force, and secondly that total war situations involving clear and specific ending dates. They were not the "new normal," as the cold war was. If you were as historically aware as you like to claim to be, you would understand the differences between the two, and would also know that one of the most common tools of the would-be tyrant is to convert a "new normal" into a permanent state of war, justifying directly the use of any measures, no matter how extreme - at least, to fools, which is often good enough.

Oh, and again, if you're so historically aware, where the hell were you in 1998 when I was running around trying to get anyone to listen to me going off about the Taliban and the fundamentalist Islamist political movement they represented? Don't lecture me about not knowing trends in history, pal. I was three and a half years ahead of that curve.

Just like I was three or four years ahead of the Iraq curve, for that matter, saying that this project was being run by the ruthless and incompetent, and that doing it in a way that would result in any kind of positive would require a 500,000-person ground presence and a 25 to 50 year stay. I wasn't doing politics on LJ at the time so much; I was doing it in the streets and political mailing lists and writings to government. Too bad nobody listened then, either; now the Iraq situation is even worse than I thought it would be. So don't call me "historically unaware." My batting average is pretty fucking good.

I also take this opportunity to note that you are the one saying that my post is calling the US government "the same as" the Nazi government. Not me.

Finally, my original point is that what the US government is doing is torture, with the assumption that torture, of course, is bad. Many people who support this administration continue to pretend that it isn't torture; that is denial, or lying, or both. Since you're effectively pro-torture - you don't consider war crimes such as torture to be grounds for impeachment - you weren't even the original target. I don't even know why you got going.

From:

Actually, no. My point is that all governemnts already are, to some extent, "monsters," and that one has only a choice of monsters.

This is stupid. Governments are collective agents of action. If you want to psychoanalyse the class as a generic individual, you'll find that it's a sociopath. Sociopaths do whatever they thing is 1) in their best interest and 2) that they can get away with.

Actually, the irreducible reason for this is that governments are composed of large numbers of people, and no matter how relatively nice the regime, it will sometimes commit some atrocities. America's regime has been in power for 220 years now, and it has committed its share ...

... and we're one of the nicer ones. That's the dark truth you aren't facing: you're imagining that somewhere, some other government of equivalent size is significantly nicer.

No such luck.

You're advocating letting them get away with whatever they want, or, at least, keeping your mouth shut when they do things I find monstrous, on the basis that other governments are worse. That's how sociopaths turn into monsters.

No, what I'm advocating is crying out against the nastiest monsters first, rather than attacking the nicer monsters and thus impeding their ability to restrain the nastier ones.

If you really hate monsters, go after Iran. North Korea. The People's Republic of China. The nastier ones, first.

Otherwise, all you do is to increase the level of atrocity. Not your intent, but still the result.

From:

solarbird

If you really hate monsters, go after Iran. North Korea. The People's Republic of China. The nastier ones, first.

1: What the fuck do you know about what I do and don't do, and have and have not done? Nothing. As you repeatedly demonstrate.

2: Do I live in North Korea? Do I live in the PR China? No. I live here. Work starts where you live. Also, did I not just post a fucking action against the Iranian government? Gosh, I think I did!

I'm tired of you, and also, done. Feck off.

From:

By the way, I reject outright the analogy between this war and WWII, WWI, or the US Civil War.

Oh, well, why deal with actual history, when we can deal with a free-floating ideal world detached from anything that actually ever happened ...

I point out that first that those were actual declarations of war, not authorisations to use force, ...

This is the legal equivalent of a declaration of war.

... secondly that total war situations involving clear and specific ending dates.

Not before thaey were over. Nobody knows when a war will end, until it's over.

They were not the "new normal," as the cold war was.

Ah, so the Cold War was of infinite duration? So, what's the Soviet Union been doing lately?

The Cold War also did not involve a declaration of war or authorization to use force against the Soviet Union. It was a diplomatic standoff that occasionally erupted into a local war, not an actual shooting war such as the one we are in now.

If you were as historically aware as you like to claim to be, you would understand the differences between the two, and would also know that one of the most common tools of the would-be tyrant is to convert a "new normal" into a permanent state of war, justifying directly the use of any measures, no matter how extreme - at least, to fools, which is often good enough.

How exactly would you propose to "deconstruct" this "permanent" state of war that we are now in ... taking into account that there is, in fact, a real enemy trying to kill us?

Oh, and again, if you're so historically aware, where the hell were you in 1998 when I was running around trying to get anyone to listen to me going off about the Taliban and the fundamentalist Islamist political movement they represented?

Mostly being called a fascist and a warmonger because I was telling people, on and offline, that we would have to fight the Islamic Terrorists and that sooner was beter than later. Just as I am being called one now, because I'm pointing out that simply "bringing the boys home" will only be a defeat, not the end of the war.

Finally, my original point is that what the US government is doing is torture, with the assumption that torture, of course, is bad.

I would agree with both your points.

Since you're effectively pro-torture - you don't consider war crimes such as torture to be grounds for impeachment ...

Ahem.

You seem to be under the assumption that we have a legal responsiblity to non-uniformed combatants, who are not American citizens.

We don't.

Look at the definition of the term "francs-tireurs," and be enlightened.

As far as the law goes, Bush could douse them in kerosene and use them to light White House lawn parties, and he'd be doing nothing against the Laws of War.

Laws of morality, yes. But that's another story.

From:

I have to give you credit for standing up for your beliefs in a hostile environment. I do believe you miss a few points here, though.

1. The cited evidence shows that the official Gestapo position on torture was more restrictive than that held by the current US administration. This doesn't make USA worse than Nazi Germany, but it does mean that USA has the potential to be worse. It's your responsibility as a US citizen to remove that potential.

2. It seems that many Americans see violence as an unavoidable and often preferable solution to problems that most of the rest of the world view as solvable by various kinds of negotiation. Don't presume that every other country is as prone to violence as you are.

3. In comparing USA to Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, you need to remember that for very many years, USA knowingly and willingly supported that dictatorship. The fact that the US administration eventually decided to remove Saddam Hussein doesn't make USA less of an accomplice to his crimes.

4. We can't argue war away. Wars will continue to occur for many years to come, and it's just wishful thinking to assume that anyone can fight a war without ruthlessness. However, there are a few differences between ruthlessness and cruelty. Ruthlessness tells the enemy to submit or be destroyed, while cruelty tells the enemy that they will be destroyed whether they submit or not. Ruthlessness may help you to win, but cruelty is likely to make you lose.

I realize that you want to believe that the current US aggression has good intentions, and that it is conducted in an efficient and proper manner. What the rest of the world sees, however, is a confused fiasco. The war in Iraq makes USA seem misguided, weak, and cruel: this strengthens your enemies and alienates your friends. Your closest ally, Tony Blair, was recently forced to resign partly because of his support for the war.

The US administration doesn't want to lose this war the way the Vietnam war was lost, and they're currently creating the weapons needed to destroy domestic opposition to the war. Today, it's your choice to help them dismantle the civil rights of US citizens, or to stop them before it's too late.

From:

(I forgot this one)

It would seem to be a relatively easy matter for the world's most powerful military force to assume control over a small country ruled by a cruel dictator whose armed forces have proven quite unable to defeat any kind of serious opposition. The fact that the US task force have failed to achieve this speaks volumes to the rest of the world. Do you think you, in the long term, have anything to gain by refusing to acknowledge this?

From:

1. The cited evidence shows that the official Gestapo position on torture was more restrictive than that held by the current US administration.

Note the word "official." The Nazis in fact treated their prisoners far worse than we do -- they intentionally murdered TENS OF MILLIONS of them.

The difference is that the Nazis were much more mendacious, not being a free society constrained by democracy and the rule of law.

2. It seems that many Americans see violence as an unavoidable and often preferable solution to problems that most of the rest of the world view as solvable by various kinds of negotiation.

I'm not sure how you imagine one can "negotiate" one's way out of a Terrorist War, especially after 9/11. The record of Europe, so far, in trying to negotiate away the Iranian nuclear weapons program is hardly promising -- and Iran wouldn't even be bothering to negotiate if it weren't for our fleet parked off their shores.

3. In comparing USA to Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, you need to remember that for very many years, USA knowingly and willingly supported that dictatorship. The fact that the US administration eventually decided to remove Saddam Hussein doesn't make USA less of an accomplice to his crimes.

I would take this accusation more seriously if I weren't aware that Russia, France and Germany, all of whom now claim to be taking the higher moral ground on Iraq, supported Saddam even more extensively. What's more, they continued to support him after his invasion of Kuwait and his subsequent violations of the truce terms, which really took a lack of national moral character.

4. We can't argue war away. Wars will continue to occur for many years to come, and it's just wishful thinking to assume that anyone can fight a war without ruthlessness. However, there are a few differences between ruthlessness and cruelty. Ruthlessness tells the enemy to submit or be destroyed, while cruelty tells the enemy that they will be destroyed whether they submit or not. Ruthlessness may help you to win, but cruelty is likely to make you lose.

Not only are we not fighting a "cruel" war in Iraq right now, we are fighting a "kinder" war than most of the wars in human history.

From:

The Nazis in fact treated their prisoners far worse than we do -- they intentionally murdered TENS OF MILLIONS of them.

We were discussing the Gestapo. You're mixing them up with the SS.

[...] not being a free society constrained by democracy and the rule of law.

Well, that's the main point of this discussion, isn't it? The current US administration is trying to limit the freedom of US citizens, circumvent the constraints of democracy, and do away with the rule of law. We think that's a rather bad idea.

I'm not sure how you imagine one can "negotiate" one's way out of a Terrorist War, especially after 9/11.

Well... Immediately after the attacks on WTC and the Pentagon*, USA had a golden opportunity to more or less finish off international terrorism without any significant bloodshed. The world opinion was very heavily in favor of USA at that point, and clever diplomacy could have dislodged terrorist supporters from their power bases. President Bush chose to throw away that opportunity and wash away the memory of the WTC victims with rivers of Iraqi blood.

So, you're quite wrong there.

[...] Iran wouldn't even be bothering to negotiate if it weren't for our fleet parked off their shores.

Actually, they wouldn't be so determined to complete their nuclear weapons research if it wasn't for that fleet. The events in Iraq has shown that the only way to be safe from US invasion is to have access to nuclear weapons.

Not only are we not fighting a "cruel" war in Iraq right now, we are fighting a "kinder" war than most of the wars in human history.

... I don't really know how to respond to this. Are you joking? If so, it's not funny.

*) the original 9/11 is the day in 1973 when CIA-backed terrorists overthrew the Chilean democracy and caused the deaths of far greater numbers of innocents than the attacks on 9/11 2001 did.

From:

Well, that's the main point of this discussion, isn't it? The current US administration is trying to limit the freedom of US citizens, circumvent the constraints of democracy, and do away with the rule of law. We think that's a rather bad idea.

I think that's a rather bad idea too, but I don't think that's what the current US administration is trying to do. In fact, Bush's conduct of the war at home has been marked with rather a higher respect for American civil liberties than was the case in the three obvious analogies: Lincoln's conduct of the Civil War, Wilson's conduct of World War One, and FDR's conduct of World War Two. Are you aware of the sorts of things that were done in those wars?

Since America did not become a dictatorship after the Civil War, after World War One, or World War Two, I am not all that worried that, for some magical reason, this time Bush's (milder) infringements of civil rights will cause such a transformation.

Well... Immediately after the attacks on WTC and the Pentagon*, USA had a golden opportunity to more or less finish off international terrorism without any significant bloodshed. The world opinion was very heavily in favor of USA at that point, and clever diplomacy could have dislodged terrorist supporters from their power bases. President Bush chose to throw away that opportunity and wash away the memory of the WTC victims with rivers of Iraqi blood.

I'm sorry ... what exactly are you envisioning America having done to "more or less finish off international terrorism without any significant bloodshed?" Especially given that there were nation-states -- Iraq, Iran and North Korea the most prominent among them -- which were (and in some cases still are) actively sponsoring international terrorists.

Do you really believe that "world opinion" could have convinced them to change their actions? And how?

Actually, they wouldn't be so determined to complete their nuclear weapons research if it wasn't for that fleet.

That's odd, because they began this research in the 1980's and continued it through the 1990's. Apparently the Iranians have access to time-viewers.

... The events in Iraq has shown that the only way to be safe from US invasion is to have access to nuclear weapons.

We invaded Iraq because Iraq committed acts of war against us. Admittedly, Iran is also committing acts of war against us, but doesn't this suggest that simply not committing acts of war against America makes one even safer from American invasion than having nuclear weapons?

Not only are we not fighting a "cruel" war in Iraq right now, we are fighting a "kinder" war than most of the wars in human history.

... I don't really know how to respond to this. Are you joking? If so, it's not funny.

No, I'm quite serious. You seem to have a rather sanitized version of how wars are usually fought -- the vast majority have been fought far more cruelly than we are doing in Iraq.

Here, I'll make it easy for you. Why not give me a list of wars that were fought less cruelly than we are doing in Iraq.

Here's a short list of some wars fought more cruelly than we are doing in Iraq. Both World Wars (on all sides). The Vietnam War (on all sides). The Korean War (on both sides). Most of the colonial wars fought by the European Powers and natives from the 1830's to the 1930's.

Your turn ...

From:

I don't think that's what the current US administration is trying to do.

OK...

what exactly are you envisioning America having done to "more or less finish off international terrorism without any significant bloodshed?"

USA could have eroded their power base, basically. The Al-Qaeda et al were rapidly losing support and desperately needed to remind the Muslim world that USA was the big enemy. Clinton refused to play their game, but Bush went for it like a daft dog after a stick of dynamite.

there were nation-states -- Iraq, Iran and North Korea the most prominent among them -- which were (and in some cases still are) actively sponsoring international terrorists.

Um, sorry, no cigar. Iraq was pretty much closed for Al-Qaeda. Until the US invasion, that is.

That's odd, because they began this research in the 1980's and continued it through the 1990's.

I didn't say they started it because of the fleet. The fleet is a reminder that they need to keep researching, and do it quickly.

We invaded Iraq because Iraq committed acts of war against us.

USA invaded Iraq because it had been decided back in the 90's that Iraq was to be invaded if opportunity presented itself. Iraq wasn't committing or even planning acts of war against USA (or anyone at that time, really), and whether Iraq would fight back or not was never a consideration. The only thing that would have mattered was if Iraq had possessed those WMD's that everyone was talking about. If they had, Saddam would still be president.

Don't think that lesson was lost on Iran, North Korea, or anyone else.

You seem to have a rather sanitized version of how wars are usually fought

As it happens, I have served in the military (as my father and grandfather before me). I was a sniper in a mech.inf company in a regiment that's more than a century older than the USA. A few of my friends are war refugees. One of my neighbors lost most of his relatives in the massacres in Bosnia. I don't claim to know everything about war, but it seems I know a lot more than you do.

The situation in Iraq (where USA is mostly just one of the factions in what is basically a civil war) constitutes a dirty war. Not at all the worst in history, but a pretty horrible one.

Still, that's not quite the point I was making. I said that the way the war is conducted makes USA seem misguided, weak, and cruel.

It didn't have to be like that. I wise president wouldn't have invaded Iraq in the first place, but if it had been necessary, a competent administration could have set up realistic goals, provided the necessary resources, and issued different guidelines for the treatment of noncombatants. The odds would still have been against success, but at least it wouldn't have been quite the disgrace for USA that it is now.

From:

what exactly are you envisioning America having done to "more or less finish off international terrorism without any significant bloodshed?"

USA could have eroded their power base, basically.

I'm not sure how we could have done that, short of attacking those countries which supported and based international terrorists.

The Al-Qaeda et al were rapidly losing support and desperately needed to remind the Muslim world that USA was the big enemy. Clinton refused to play their game, but Bush went for it like a daft dog after a stick of dynamite.

So you don't think we should have invaded even Afghanistan? Or am I misinterpreting that? I mean, Afghanistan was Bin Laden's HQ, and Bin Laden had just launched what amounted to a heavy missile attack on two of America's most important cities -- quite an unimistakable act of war!

there were nation-states -- Iraq, Iran and North Korea the most prominent among them -- which were (and in some cases still are) actively sponsoring international terrorists.

Um, sorry, no cigar. Iraq was pretty much closed for Al-Qaeda. Until the US invasion, that is.

Al-Qaeda was not the only group of international terrorists, nor even the only group that had committed acts of war against America. You're ignoring the larger picture here.

You seem to have a rather sanitized version of how wars are usually fought

As it happens, I have served in the military (as my father and grandfather before me). I was a sniper in a mech.inf company in a regiment that's more than a century older than the USA. A few of my friends are war refugees. One of my neighbors lost most of his relatives in the massacres in Bosnia. I don't claim to know everything about war, but it seems I know a lot more than you do.

Ok, then ... so, why do you believe this war to be more cruel than most? Especially in terms of the conduct of our own side?

... a competent administration could have set up realistic goals, provided the necessary resources, and issued different guidelines for the treatment of noncombatants.

In what way have we been treating noncombatants which is more cruel than normal practice in warfare? In actual, large-scale wars, mind you -- not small-scale operations conducted by small elite forces, or idealized concepts of how soldiers are supposed to behave in wartime.

From: