Wonder what the NR poll would find this morning.........

While every soldier is cherished.......400 losses is a very successful campaign. Did you naysayers expect us to fight a war with no casualties? What are we playing, Doom on "God Mode"? Get a clue. .....and to compare it to Vietnam.....as some of you have, is ignorant. 58,000+ > 400+......and we accomplished nothing in Vietnam. Talk to GrandFunk about how the soldiers were screwed in Vietnam by McNamara and the whiz kids. Of course, he will probably get a little ticked at comparing a successful campaign like the Iraqi situation and the hellhole that was Vietnam where he served with 1st Cav.

joebordenrebel Wrote:Since you bought the book and I didn't, how about explaining his position for him?

How is this a just war?

Being that the USA is so powerful and has such a high standard of living, we have a Kantian-based duty toward uplifting other nations. Since Saddam ruled Iraq in Stalinist style it is like you are walking down the street and you see a bully wailing on some poor crippled child. You have an ontological duty to help that poor child since you have all your strength and faculties.
Basically, Walzer would say the WMD's don't even enter the argument. This war should have been fought for humanitarian reasons. But the president didn't push that reasoning, rather he marketed this war on the WMD's and the threat aspect.
Walzer would also say that being a superpower comes with a price.

Walzer would also say we need to liberate Korea, Indonesia, Tibet and about a 1000 other nations.
Being a superpower comes with a price.

I think you can see why Walzer thinks the U.S. foreign policy is entirely inconsistent! He generally follows Chomsky's reasoning on this.

If you are interested, I've read another military ethicist named Sidney Axinn who wrote A Moral Military. Very good, he teaches at Florida International now, a nice guy, ex-military but you wouldn't believe it!

KlutzDio I Wrote:Being that the USA is so powerful and has such a high standard of living, we have a Kantian-based duty toward uplifting other nations. Since Saddam ruled Iraq in Stalinist style it is like you are walking down the street and you see a bully wailing on some poor crippled child. You have an ontological duty to help that poor child since you have all your strength and faculties.
Basically, Walzer would say the WMD's don't even enter the argument. This war should have been fought for humanitarian reasons. But the president didn't push that reasoning, rather he marketed this war on the WMD's and the threat aspect.
Walzer would also say that being a superpower comes with a price.

Walzer would also say we need to liberate Korea, Indonesia, Tibet and about a 1000 other nations.
Being a superpower comes with a price.

I think you can see why Walzer thinks the U.S. foreign policy is entirely inconsistent! He generally follows Chomsky's reasoning on this.

If you are interested, I've read another military ethicist named Sidney Axinn who wrote A Moral Military. Very good, he teaches at Florida International now, a nice guy, ex-military but you wouldn't believe it!

Are these books on how to justify war in general or focusing on Iraq?

They sound interesting. Are the titles:

Michael Walzer - "Just and Unjust Wars"
Sidney Axinn - "A Moral Military"

RebelKev Wrote:While every soldier is cherished.......400 losses is a very successful campaign. Did you naysayers expect us to fight a war with no casualties? What are we playing, Doom on "God Mode"? Get a clue. .....and to compare it to Vietnam.....as some of you have, is ignorant. 58,000+ > 400+......and we accomplished nothing in Vietnam. Talk to GrandFunk about how the soldiers were screwed in Vietnam by McNamara and the whiz kids. Of course, he will probably get a little ticked at comparing a successful campaign like the Iraqi situation and the hellhole that was Vietnam where he served with 1st Cav.

Kev, the Vietnam war lasted roughly 20 years (1954-75). This war has yet to last 20 months.

I don't think 400 is a small number. You have to figure it is twice the number wounded. Also, think about what these guys' wives, husbands and children have to think about it all. It really sucks to know that any day a military chaplain could come visit you. It also rreally sucks for the countless Guard people who are leaving their jobs and families behind to go fight a base-less war.

Now, we are getting into the reasoning behind this war. Bush said we are going to war because Saddam is a threat.
Did you or have any of your people been ambushed on the way to the Winn-Dixie by Saddam and the Iraqis?

I hate it RebelKev, but you have to admit, when we controlled over 70% of Saddam's airspace, the man and his army was NOT a threat.

So, back to the 400 (and the 800). These men and women have had their whole lives discombobulated over a reason-less war. Now that we "control" Iraq and have deposed and captured their criminal leader, the world is still unsafe. We, as a nation are still susceptible to terror attacks, I still pay 92% of my income to insurance companies, Israel is still a mess, there has yet to be representative government in the mideast, our troops are being attacked daily over there, Iraqis are dying daily over there (if not being arrested and detained by occupation forces), this is costing American taxpayers an arm and a leg, and the majority world is still living in impoverished conditions. Fact is, this war changed very little.

In Iraq it has improved some conditions while worsening others. The best examples would be the fact no more torture goes on at the hands of Saddam, but at the same time, mass arrests and killings are still going on. Schools are operating and the oil refinereis are operating but at the same time, Iraqis make small, measly amounts of money a nation wracked by infaltion, unemployment and an unstable economy.
Yes it takes time, but why does it take Americans' time? Saddam did not attack us. We patrolled his skies to make sure there was no tomfoolery or scud attacks. We watched him like a hawk! Saddam was not threat to us and we have set a dangerous precedent waging preemptive wars.

This war has similarities with other wars, and Vietnam is included on that list. AS long as this remains a guerilla conflict, there will always be comparisons with Vietnam.

KD, we were losing over 500 soldiers a week. The war didn't last 20 years. I understand we controlled most of his airspace and I am sure you realize the reason we did that.

Take a simple history course or read any book on the Vietnam conflict. The war lasted 20 years, 1954-1975.

While we did not officially have ground forces in combat operations until 1965, the Lyndon Johnson tapes, as well as archival information from the Kennedy Administration, shows that our ground forces comprised the lead in any combat prior to 1965. Ike and Kennedy quietly carried out a "secret" war prior to Johnson's escalations.

You need to get your facts straight.

Another similar aspect to Vietnam with today's conflict:
Go to your local library and read the NYT and the LAT (or any other national newspaper) from 1965-66. I guarantee you that you will read rhetoric about "democratizing" Southeast Asia much the way today's warmongers are "democratizing" the Mideast.

Kev. . .you still there?

Oh, right. Reading, I know.

Have you ever considered learning speed reading? :D

Anyway, while you're still thinking about how to respond (or too embarrassed to come back to this thread and display your ignorance again) I thought I'd just like to tell you what an idiot I think you are.

I know it's stooping to your level and all but you are. You're a fu#%ing punk!

Luckily, Jesus still loves you. :roflol:

rickheel Wrote:Now that the threat of Saddam is gone, how will the Iraqi people react? Did ya see them JB? Out in the streets dancing, firing guns in the air???

Sorry, Ricky, but I didn't get a chance to watch teevee this month.

You see, I have this life and it just keeps getting in the way of my passive atomization from the rest of society.

Lucky for you I love to argue so I won't be dropping the laptop anytime soon. Do keep me informed on what Pravda reports though, will you? I appreciate that.

joebordenrebel Wrote:Kev. . .you still there?

Oh, right. Reading, I know.

Have you ever considered learning speed reading? :D

Anyway, while you're still thinking about how to respond (or too embarrassed to come back to this thread and display your ignorance again) I thought I'd just like to tell you what an idiot I think you are.

I know it's stooping to your level and all but you are. You're a fu#%ing punk!

Luckily, Jesus still loves you. :roflol:

The fact is WE weren't involved in combat with Vietnam for 20 years as KD was trying to imply and we were losing >500 a week in that conflict. Maybe YOU should get a little more educated. Hell, you might even be able to get a job at something other than a community college.

As far as your childish name calling, I won't stoop to your level.

T-Monay820 Wrote:Are these books on how to justify war in general or focusing on Iraq?

They sound interesting. Are the titles:

Michael Walzer - "Just and Unjust Wars"
Sidney Axinn - "A Moral Military"

T-Monay,

Sorry I didn't respond sooner, but I missed your response.

Michael Walzer and Sidney Axinn are former military officers, both U.S. Army. Walzer and Axinn both served in combat, the former in Korea and Vietnam, the latter in WWII and Korea. Both taught at military academies. Walzer is currently on the faculty at West Point teaching philosophy and military ethics. Axinn taught at the Air Force Academy, teaching philosophy and military history, as well as rules on the Hague and Geneva Conventions. Axinn is currently professor emeritus at Florida International.

These guys are ethicists and in their books, written long before the current conflict, give parameters for waging warfare within our framework of national laws as well as the framework for international law. That said, these books are theory with concrete examples to illustrate theory.
Walzer's book is more recent and he brings into the discussion international terrorists and how they got started. His book talks about terrorist events such as the Lockerbie massacre as well as the first WTC bombing. He does not specifically talk about the current war because it had not happened yet.

Answering your question, they are about justifying war in general. Axinn's book is more on military practice in relation to laws on warfare. In short he examines the question: why do nations enter into agreements with other nations on the rules of warfare when all of the nations involved have absolutely no desire to follow the rules that they come up with? He uses concrete examples through history of all nations involved in warfare over the past century. Focusing on the U.S. he gets into a discussion on the My Lai incident in Vietnam. He also discusses Soviet warcrimes and other nations like Britain and the Third Reich.

Interesting enough, many of Hitler's generals knew they were violating the Hague and Geneva Conventions. They protested, even one surrenedered because he knew military ethics enough and he wasn't going to violate his principles. The Gestapo murdered what family he had left in Germany.

Axinn's book is hard to find. Not available on amazon or other internet books sellers. Walzer's book has seen increased sales since the current conflict and you could probably find that at your local library. For Axinn's book, it might be available at a large University bookstore.

These are both really good and easy reads. I read both in just a few short days (because I was so interested).

T-Monay,

I looked around and Axinn's book is available at Barnes and Noble (man it took me a long time to find it several years ago when I needed it for a class).

And, here's a link you might want to read:

<a href='http://www.temple.edu/tempress/titles/549_reg.html' target='_blank'>Axinn review and table of contents for A Moral Military</a>

While this site is Temple University, I got an email from Axinn two years ago that came with a Florida International signature.

And out of fairness, here's a link on a review of Walzer's book (the edition I read, talked of more current events).

<a href='http://www.mindspring.com/~kimall/Reviews/justwars.html' target='_blank'>Review on Walzer</a>

Again, out of fairness, here's a negative review of Walzer (which I think the writer misrepresents Walzer's positions). Nonetheless, this is a good link with alot of information, scroll down after reading!

<a href='http://www.brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/reviews.detail/book_id/1249/' target='_blank'>Walzer is a big bad Liberal Commie who fought for the U.S.!</a>

RebelKev Wrote:Hell, you might even be able to get a job at something other than a community college.

As far as your childish name calling, I won't stoop to your level.

You really don't have any clue how dumb you are, do you? :roflol:

joebordenrebel Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:Hell, you might even be able to get a job at something other than a community college.

As far as your childish name calling, I won't stoop to your level.

You really don't have any clue how dumb you are, do you? :roflol:

Hmmm, let's see, we both have degrees and you are a 4 year college prof reject working at a 2 year community College and I am a Network Engineer. Yup.....it's me who is the dumb one.

Aww, did I step on its toes? Poor widdle thing.

I made more money selling cell phones last year than you did fixing whatever it is that you fix. . .shall we compare paychecks? Does that fact make me smarter than you?

Nope. Income has nothing to do with intelligence.

I'm working at a community college because I choose to, not because I can't work anywhere else. I taught at Ole Miss, too. Taught high school too.

Does the fact that I'm on vacation three months out of the year make me smarter than you?

Nope. But it does mean I'm not nearly as stressed as you obviously are!

My comment was made because you called me a name in one line, then said you would not stoop to name calling in the very next line.

If you can't figure out how directly contradicting yourself in the span of fifty words makes you an idiot, then far be it from me to point it out, Herr Doktor! :roflol:

RebelKev Wrote:

joebordenrebel Wrote:

RebelKev Wrote:Hell, you might even be able to get a job at something other than a community college.

As far as your childish name calling, I won't stoop to your level.

You really don't have any clue how dumb you are, do you? :roflol:

Hmmm, let's see, we both have degrees and you are a 4 year college prof reject working at a 2 year community College and I am a Network Engineer. Yup.....it's me who is the dumb one.

Only a conservative like you would try to compare success like that...

RebelKev... if you really want to play that game, gimme a call in 10 years and we'll compare our education.

Yeah, I went to more school than you!

You might want a little knowledge of who JoeBorden is before you make assumptions, BTW, Kev.

RebelKev, educational milestones like degrees or whatnot don't mean squat (and niether do professions because I was once a truck-driver and ten times more rational than my boss who had an MBA). What determines who is smarter than whom is thinking skills. Those who think rationally are automatically smarter. Those who think irrationally are idiots because they are not using their mental faculties to their utmost ability.

RebelKev, I thought I explained to you earlier that you are a lazy thinker, that is a sloppy thinker. You are quite irrational and JBR is very rational because he thinks with precision! In short, JBR works at thinking, on the other hand, you don't!