[thread created by a question by Ian on the War in Iraq]

hey Zarove, i'v become a convert to the war in Iraq. like to run it by you here, if that's OK.

Elpidio, are you interested in a chat on this?

it does have a complicated moral angle, so i hope that it qualifies as "postable" in these parts.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 09, 2004.

Is this a religious belief of yours now?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 09, 2004.

i have changed my views on the licitness of the invasion of Iraq. i wanted to share this because its for unconventional reasons.

i think that Michael Moore has actually presented the case **for** war in his book.

if anyone is interested, i will go further.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 10, 2004.

Assistant Moderator

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), November 12, 2004

Answers

ian, may i ask you to continue, i'm interested to hear this...

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 11, 2004.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------

OK paul h. there's a nasty moral issue at the end of this but it begins with home truths espoused by Michael Moore.

we know that Bin L was an avowed enemy of Saddam. Saddam was a secularist who used Islam whenever it suited him. he was certainly no fundamentalist Moslem. therefore, and this has always been known, the atrocity of 9/11 had nothing to do with Saddam. though he most likely was delighted that it had happened, he would have had NO involvement in it.

9/11 never directly justified an invasion of Iraq.

did it indirectly justify such an attack? that was argued on the basis of the existence of WMD's in Iraq that were going to be used by Saddam or terrorists. this could have been nailed down by further inspections, but Pres Bush seemed desparately keen to get in there before that happened.

as it happens, no WMD's have ever been found. the intelligence that suggested he had WMD's is now known to have been extremely unreliable. where there WMD's, well, other rogue states have WMD's for sure but nothing is ever done about it.

and finally the humanitarian argument - Saddam is nasty so we must help his people. well that apllies throughout the world. Iraq was singled out for special treatment.

now for Moore's obsession with the Saudis. well, he's right again. the Saudi Royal Family is split down the middle. as it stands, its the hedonistic westernised Saudis that rule the roost. they're very close to the Bush family, undeniably close.

Moore also highlights the fact that the vast majority of the murderers of 9/11 were Saudi, and that Bin L is an extremely wealthy and well-connected Saudi

all you need to add is that a huge swathe of the Saudi Royal Family are actually fundamentalist Moslems, and there is areal power struggle and serious pressure being brought upon Saudi to become a fundie state.

that's a real problem. what if Saudi went fundi Muslim?

well, personally speaking, i think that might create a new Dark Age. we are just hooked on oil. everything we do nowadays uses oil.

so how do you strike at Saudi, an ally of the US, without striking at Saudi.

you strike at Iraq because what that gets you is this:

1/ the US now has its hands on about 21% of the world's oil reserves. the new puppet state that emerges will ensure that the US never goes without. the US military machine will always be ready and able to travel anywhere to fight.

2/ the Saudi's now know that they cannot blackmail the US. the US is no longer almost totally reliant upon them. even if the fundies fail to seize control of Saudi, terrorism might result in the resruction of oil producing facilities. that will no longer hurt the US.

3/ this is a message too for Iran. get too heavy and we'll go in to your country too.

4/ you draw all the fundy Moslems from all around the world (the foreign Moslems in Iraq) into one couintry and one war and you kill them all off.

5/ you arrest all the other fundy Moslems from all around the world that you suspect of being terrorist and lock them all up on an island.

6/ and you did it by painting Saddam as Stain. even though he has been behaving this way for years and years and years.

all/ most of this can be found in Moore's latest book.

now, my point is twofold.

a/ we have been lied to. the stated reasons for the war were always sketchy and fanciful. but does that really matter?

b/ because, if you accept that the lesser of the two evils is war and death on a relatively limited scale in Iraq, then one can easily support this war.

yes, 9/11 has been used as a smoke screen. it got us all mad and emotional. and Bush made sure that he got in there before the smoke lifted. he couldn't do as the Pope advised, namely, wait.

i think US presence in the Middle East is for the good of us all. if the US goes down, so does the world.

this invasion will stop that happening.

now am i being barmy? i see the war as being against fundamentalist Islam, not against terrorism. it is in truth a Modern Crusade. Bush let that slip.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 11, 2004.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 12, 2004.

I believe that Ian is correct. The Muslims are a pain in the rear to the NWO and they have to be controlled. Sure they are nogoodnicks, but so is Israel. We are now stuck with this war and have to win it, but the trouble goes back to 1947 when the UN created the state of Israel. Actually back to the beginning of Freemasonry and the Illuminatti.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 12, 2004.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), November 12, 2004.

Maybe even further back to Ishmael and Isaac...

.......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 12, 2004.

My position Rod, is that the Palestinians are not palestinians (maybe a few from Gaza are...) since palestinian is the modern word for Philistines...who are related to the Greeks. They settled the area around 1200 B.C.

Most modern so-called Palestinians I believed are descended from Esau (Esav in Hebrew). He was also known as Edom (Red-probably a red- haired person).

According to Genesis, Esav was supposed to inherit the blessings of Abraham and Isaaac because he was the older. There is a claim that Jacob stole that blessing.

Not only were the Edomites supposed to get the blessing but also the land of Canaan. Actually they always lived close by. One of their places was Petra.

As for Abraham's other children: Ishmael (modern Bedouin and Egyptian Arabs) and Midian (Arabian Arabs) they were a little further away from Canaan now Israel.

I had suggested to President Clinton to have a confederation of 2 nations: Israel and Palestine(I prefer the word Idumea since Palestinians are not Philistines but Edomite(Idumeans)).

That is my third letter to Clinton from January 2001 that I will post soon.

The Christian Yahwist

The Man of Yahweh

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), November 12, 2004.

I just feel the need to mention here that our President publically apologized for misleading the american people into war. In all honesty, he could have blammed the faulty intelligence, blammed this person or that person, maybe even blammed the congressmen. The point is, he didn't do any of those things. He took blame upon himself and apologized. This speaks of his character.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), November 12, 2004.

This war is just another political war like the korean, vietnam, gulf, and now this. It is a no win type war. Politics before lives. We have an air force second to none, heavy armor tanks, artillery, yet these boys are going house to house. for shame. twenty two dead. twenty two grieving families. We never learn.

-- Shambler (rewaw@ wuiop.com), November 12, 2004.

"I just feel the need to mention here that our President publically apologized for misleading the american people into war."

Luke, when and how did he apologise?!?! i am shocked.

my argument is that he might well have lied to his electorate about the reasons for going, but that's just political expediency - and most politucians are born liars.

however, imho, he had a very good reason to go out there and take fundamental Islam head-on before they destroyed the planet.

i think that support for the war may be waning, because its execution has been somewhat erratic; but the reason's for going are as good now as they ever were.

as for the door-to-door stuff - well some would argue that he should just have carpet-bombed Fallujah. maybe they're right. i don't think so, but time will tell.

if the fundie Moslems are not taken out decisively, life in the Western Hemisphere may begin to resemble life in the Third World. that's the harsh reality. i don't see any way round that.

its the lesser of two evils.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 14, 2004.

It was after his State of the Union address in 2003. During that speech, President Bush had used the false intelligence information. Two of his officials, one deputy national adviser Stephen Hadley, also issued apologies for allowing bad intelligence to be put in the speech. I'm not sure if Bush did so by television, I just remember reading it in the paper.

-- Luke Juarez (hubertdorm@yahoo.com), November 14, 2004.

When will Bush say "to hell with politics, and do the right thing in closing the borders.

Sunday, Nov. 14, 2004 A key al-Qaeda operative seized in Pakistan recently offered an alarming account of the group's potential plans to target the U.S. with weapons of mass destruction, senior U.S. security officials tell TIME. Sharif al-Masri, an Egyptian who was captured in late August near Pakistan's border with Iran and Afghanistan, has told his interrogators of "al-Qaeda's interest in moving nuclear materials from Europe to either the U.S. or Mexico," according to a report circulating among U.S. government officials.

Masri also said al-Qaeda has considered plans to "smuggle nuclear materials to Mexico, then operatives would carry material into the U.S.," according to the report, parts of which were read to TIME. Masri says his family, seeking refuge from al-Qaeda hunters, is now in Iran.

Masri's account, though unproved, has added to already heightened U.S. concerns about Mexico. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge met publicly with top Mexican officials last week to discuss border security and smuggling rings that could be used to slip al-Qaeda terrorists into the country. Weeks prior to Ridge's lightning visit, U.S. and Mexican intelligence conferred about reports from several al-Qaeda detainees indicating the potential use of Mexico as a staging area "to acquire end-stage chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear material." U.S. officials have begun to keep a closer eye on heavy-truck traffic across the border. The Mexicans will also focus on flight schools and aviation facilities on their side of the frontier. And another episode has some senior U.S. officials worried: the theft of a crop-duster aircraft south of San Diego, apparently by three men from southern Mexico who assaulted a watchman and then flew off in a southerly direction. Though the theft's connection to terrorism remains unclear, a senior U.S. law-enforcement official notes that crop dusters can be used to disperse toxic substances. The plane, stolen at night two weeks ago, has not been recovered.

-- TC (Tredmill234@south.com), November 14, 2004.

Luke

i've searched the net and the only apology i can attach to Bush was regarding the ill-treatment of prisoners in Iraq.

the point is - he has nothing to apologise over.

as for closing the borders, TC, the lion, the King of the Jungle, cannot stop all those little fleas from climbing on his back. he's just lucky that none of them have 200lbs of semtex strapped to their back.

the US is really going to struggle to keep the lunatics out. its borders are too big. the lunatics are simply capable of any hardship and atrocity. that's why its right to take them on abroad. draw them out of their lairs in Iraq.

at this point, the US should be going around the Middle East and demanding that every single Moslem political and religious leader declare their allegiances in this war. anyone who is not unequivocally for the war should be reminded that when it is over, there will be a day of reckoning.

Jordan must start catching and imprisoning terrorists. so must all the other countries.

if not, they're next on the list. the US will go in there too.

the future of the world is at risk. i never thought i would get this, but Bush and Blair are the only two world leaders worthy of note who get it.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 15, 2004.

Correct Ian, The borders are large, but nevertheless we must make it most difficult. One person suggested mining the area. He said that after a few hit them, they would slow down. Drastic? Sure. But this is war. We have fine kids dying over there so extreme (or what seems like extreme) measures may not be so far off the mark.

-- TC (Treadmill234@south.com), November 15, 2004.

I am new to this discussion, so i will try not to assume that i understand everyone's position perfectly. But, the sense that i get is that the majority of you favor this war as a "neccessary evil" to protect America and the rest of the world from fundamentalist Muslims. Is that right?

I will probably get burned at the stake for this, but i am curious when pre-emptive wars became the proper Christian response to assuring it's survival. Or maybe we are meaning to say that it is the proper response for America to assure its survival. I cannot tell, because I am having a hard time distinguishing the line many of you are placing between nationalistic patriotism and true Christian faith. Have you established them or they one in the same for many of you.

I don't ask to offend anyone. I am genuinely curious, as my own Christian beliefs seem to differ from what i am perceiving in this post.

Thanks

-- Jim B (seekingtruth@sbcglobal.net), November 17, 2004.

Welcome, Jim B.

Be free to ask any questions.

Assistant Moderator

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonval@yahoo.com), November 17, 2004.

Hello Jim B

as this thread is based upon my post, i would explain that i am not American and would never really describe myself as patriotic of any country. over time, i have become pretty much country-less. i guess that i'm just a Catholic, really.

what i believe, though, is that we (i'll explain who "we" are later) are staring in the face the devastation protrayed so chillingly in the first Mad Max film. have you seen that film? it was made in Australia on a very low budget.

we seems to have choices here:

1/ we do nothing and run the risk (not the certainty but the substantial risk) that we end up in a similar state as Mad MAx; or

2/ we go out there and confront the fundamentalist Moslems and send strong messages to all sympathetic countries and other organizations.

we are protecting the US, Europe, civilisation, Christianity, freedom, stability, democracy, the economic and moral well being of the world, ..., a great many things indeed - so you see who i mean by "we". i wouldn't say that this is necessarily a Christian Coalition, as there are plenty of the other major world religions, such as Jews, Hindus and indeed Moslems, that see the sense in resisting fundamentalist Islam in this way.

is pre-emption right? i never ever imagined that i would say this but please bear in mind that, even if the possibility is remote, the downside would be unimaginable.

my real point was that Bush went there, not for the reasons he gave which made little sense, but for other good reasons that he probably felt he could not broadcast.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 18, 2004.

Ian-

THanks for your clarification. I understand your concerns, and yet, i still have my questions/concerns about preemption. Well, at least i question Iraq as the focus this battle on fundametalist Muslims.

You must understand that as an American, the stance of preemption, which came into effect as we attacked Iraq, is entirely unAmerican. Our motto, so to speak, has always been to never "fire unless fired upon." While many could make the argument that we were "fired upon" on September 11, 2001, there has yet to be proof that Iraq had anything to do with that. I doubt you would have heard much complaint had this "coalition of the willing" decided to infiltrate Saudi Arabia as they did Afghanistan. Of course, we all know (at least here in America) that an invasion of Saudi Arabia will never happen for a myriad of political and financial reasons.

I know i am at risk of turning this to a political discussion, and that is not the theme of this post, so i will try to refocus. I have a difficult time seperating my moral convictions from the largely secular political realm sometimes. And, from a moral sense, i still have my questions about a preemptive war. Though it may sound so, i really am not a pacifist- i would be the first to vote for a military response to an attack, hence why i have no complaints about our involvement in Afghanistan- but from a spiritual standpoint i cannot justify force by any means unless it be in defense. Now i know that it could be argued that the best defense is a good offense. But isn't that the policy of fundamentalist Muslims that would fly planes into buildings?

Let us say for one moment, that we are successful in suppressing the "muslim uprising" in the middle east that threatens to spread throughout the world and has indeed already begun to. Let's say that we begin to "colonize", for lack of a better characterization, the middle east with new democracies of freedom. Does this not only further incense, and even polarize, the largely Muslim middle east region. Despite the concensus in America these days, most middle eastern countries view the U.S. as a "Christian nation." Therefore, any incurrence into their lands is in effect, a holy war.

All this is to say that the responsibility of religion, or any "christian country" is not to supress the growing power of more radical religions. These countries should by all means protect their own sovereignty at their borders. But, religions will never be crushed by force. An anarchist militia may be crushed by force, but an entire religious structure never will be. In fact, most religions are only strengthened by oppression. Have not times of oppression seen the most growth in the Christian church? Is it not the poorer nations that are seeing the most spiritual revival in these days?

Only the vast spread of Christianity, a more viable and true religion, will ever suppress the growth of some of these more radical religions. That, is the responsibility of the church, not the government. And all of that, is under the sovereignty of our God, as we pray in earnest for such change.

I hope i have not confused the issue. There is much difficulty in seperating all of the factors involved. In fact, it may be impossible. Let me know if I need to clarify any thoughts further.

-- Jim B (seekingtruth@sbcglobal.net), November 19, 2004.

i do not think you canbe so black and white about pre-emption.

Churchill declared war on Germany after they invaded Poland. he did so even though Hitler was a great admirer of Britain and was then extremely unlinkely ever to attack Britain.

Churchill was the only one, really, who saw the dangers of Nazism.

i would find it hard to argue that his pre-emptive declaration of war was immoral. i think the Holocaust is enough proof.

look also at the carpet bombing of Dresden. immoral? well count the number of lives that it saved in the long run.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 21, 2004.

minor correction - French co-declared War on Hitler pre-emptively.

note also that the war in the East was centered on oil.

in the case f Iraq, its a judgement that needs to be made - which is the greater evil? invading a third country, Iraq. or allowing fundamental Islam to hold the world to ransom.

i know which way i vote.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 21, 2004.

http://www.impeachblair.org/ http://impeachbush.meetup.com/277/members/1630336/

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 24, 2004.

During WW2 the Germans bombed Coventry with great loss of life. Winston Churchill had broken the German code and could have thwarted or mitigated the damage.

He felt the code was too valuable and sacrifiiced Coventry.

Was it moral or not? A tough question. An acquaintance of ours, (4 years old at the time) was out on the countryside with many other children.

Any ideas on the moral issue?

-- TC (Treadmill234@@south.com), November 26, 2004.

Bump.

-- TC (eeee@@iiii.com), November 26, 2004.

TC

the lesser of two evils.

i am with you.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 26, 2004.

War is good and I can kill for free! I don`t end up in jail for blowing off them Muslim pricks and Uncle Sam don`t need to pay me to serve in the forces. I`m all for this war and I don`t care for the cause so long as I can continue to kill I`ll support Bush. I don`t understand why all this talk on justifying the war in Iraq. If you don`t go and serve then you don`t have the right to voice your feelings. Cowards! Ian

-- Ian Robson (IR@hotmail.com), November 29, 2004.

Ian (Robson)

i assume that you are being sarcastic.

to be the lesser of 2 evils is still to be evil.

all war is evil in that sense.

it is wasteful. it destroys lives and communities. it creates divisions. it breeds hatred.

is it win-win for Satan? i think it might be. he certainly cannot be disappointed right now.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), November 29, 2004.

Of for Pete's sake people. Let's review our history shall we?

How many times in the OLD TESTAMENT did the People of God restrict themselves to merely defensive military actions? Not a whole lot... they marched OUT to do battle most of the time.

Fighting defensive wars only almost always results in losing them.

David fought Goliath - he didn't have to...he wanted to for the sake of the people. It was armed combat not murder. Yes, yes, all wars kill people, but most of the time those killed were armed and shooting back whereas not all deaths in this world happen by war. Most human beings are actually killed by abortion, not war.\

When Joshua was leading the people into the promised land they fought OFFENSIVE wars.

In the modern era...when Paul was in Jerusalem and a plot was launched against his life, the Romans didn't wait until the terrorists sprang their trap. They pre-empted it by hustling Paul out of town under force of arms.

Rome was liberated from the Arians in the 5th century by the Byzantine general Bellasarius who invaded and liberated the Catholics there. Arianism thus finally died off not from theological dialogue but because its civil and military champions were defeated.

The First Crusade was a military invasion for the liberation of the whole of Anatolia, starting with Nicea, then moving on to Antioch, Edessa, and finally Jerusalem. It wasn't a war of genocide (the crusaders marched peacefully through Beruit nor strictly a war of religion (they fought WITH Muslims on occasion against other Muslims) but both a religious pilgrimage and effort to liberate the holy places from ONE particular band of Muslims who unlike all the others were intolerant of unarmed pilgrims (thus starting the whole trouble in 1050).

The battle of Lepanto, celebrated on September 15, was a combined Christian OFFENSIVE campaign to PRE-EMPT the huge Turkish fleet from running amok in the area.

In other words, they didn't wait until they were attacked - Portugal, Spain, France, the Papal States, and Venice massed their ships months in advance, and set sail to hunt down and do battle - which they did off the coast of GREECE (bay of Lepanto) not the coasts of Europe.

The Pope recently praised the brave Polish soldiers who died fighting in the battle of Monte Casino in 1944. Hmmmmmmmm. they weren't fighting a DEFENSIVE war against the Germans as their homeland had already been conquered 5 years previously. The Germans weren't on the attack, they were. If that wasn't an OFFENSIVE campaign, what is?

Given all the above precedents, for someone to claim Catholicism and claim to understand Just war doctrine can't possibly conclude that the US and coalition invasion, liberation and current mopping up campaign on behalf of the RECOGNIZED NEW IRAQI GOVERNMENT - RECOGNIZED AND BLESSED BY THE POPE and others, is somehow unjust or immoral on the face of it.

That being said, a cause may be just while unjust things happen. Just as a religious order or group can be approved yet still have unjust members or sinners. Jesus Christ himself choose the 12 apostles after a night in prayer and yet Judas betrayed him... gave scandal to the other 11 and one would presume, also to whole community.

But whose fault was that? Jesus for choosing him or Judas for making poor use of his freedom?

I think half the problem with respect to Iraq is the difference between media controlled by a dictatorship which only releases joyful "everything is wonderful here" news reports before the war and an anti-American media that only releases "everything is awful here" news reports after the war - making some SIMPLE MINDED IDIOTS assume that Iraq was hunky dory until the big bad US got involved and messed everything up.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 02, 2004.

Any evil power warrants any premptive strike, plain and simple.

..........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 02, 2004.

Oops!

Any evil power warrants any premptive strike by those who oppose the evil power, plain and simple.

.......

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), December 02, 2004.

Joe

fyi, the purpose of the thead was to put forward a point of view -- that the war is certainly just - but not because of the reasons officially set forth by the President.

i can't accept that attacking Iraq, which had no WMD's, because a bunch of Saudis committed mass-murder in NY, was in and of itself justified.

however, i do accept that the world is on the precipice because of the political turmoil in Saudi -- and that something needed to be done.

9/11 provided the cover.

i think the Administration misled the people - but i think it was justified.

that's all been posted above in greater detail.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 02, 2004.

No, for the administration to have "misled" the people they would have had to know for sure what everyone else in the world didn't know - (all while we are supposed to believe Bush and idiot) namely, that the Iraqis didn't have WMDs even though all their actions and all the actions of their allies made it look as though they DID.

If a mad man runs up to a school playground waving a pistol and a police man shoots him dead - only to discover the gun was unloaded, we don't assume that the police man KNOWINGLY murdered the man.

He has to go on what is most probable.

Had it been an open secret that Saddam had no WMDs even though we were constantly finding the MEANS TO PRODUCE THEM, the WILL TO PRODUCE THEM, the MOTIVE TO PRODUCE THEM, the MONEY TO PRODUCE THEM, and the PAST EXPERIENCE WITH THEM, I don't think any sane person would have been able to conclude that Saddam would never in the future acquire them.

As for there not being a connection.... there was MORE PRACTICAL connections between Saddam's Iraq and Al Qaeda than there was between the Nazis and Japanese. No open treaty, no ID cards, but the PEOPLE ivolved were the same.

Marines found non-Iraqis in Iraq during the first invasion and continue to find non-Iraqi terrorists there all the time - exactly as they found in Afghanistan! Al Qaeda wasn't a Taliban organization - it wasn't an Afghani organization. It was composed of Arabs from all over the place... and lo and behold, they were in Iraq and are still in Iraq.

If that's not a connection what is? What are we looking for? A signed treaty? An embassy? what?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 02, 2004.

Wednesday, December 1, 2004 by Ted Rall They Fight and Die, But Not For Their Country Why Soldiers Make the Ultimate Sacrifice by Ted Rall On Veteran's Day, Kyle Burns of Laramie, Wyoming lost his life in Iraq. At his memorial service, the Associated Press reported, he was remembered "as a marine who died for his country." Another fallen American was honored in Topeka the same week. Clinton Wisdom, said a reporter for Channel 13 news, was "a soldier who had died for his country." There was another service in Belington, West Virginia, for Romulo Jiminez, killed at age 21 in Fallujah. "He not only died for his country, he died for each one of us individually to preserve freedom," said the funeral director. Wisconsin lost three men in Iraq that week, including Todd Cornel, 38. "What he did was what he wanted to do, and he died for his country, for our freedom," said his father.

Did he? Have any of the Iraq war dead really "died for their country"?

At a time when every other Arab oil-guzzling SUV bears a yellow "support our troops" sticker and probable antiwar liberal Dan Rather "salutes fallen heroes" of Iraq on the evening news, the red- blue divide hasn't altered traditional perceptions of military service. But with 1,500 U.S. soldiers dead in Afghanistan and Iraq and influential Bushists calling for invading Iran, the question bears asking: What does it mean to fight (or die) for the United States?

When we hear that soldiers fight for our country, we immediately think of their role guarding our borders, protecting us from invaders. Yet the U.S. has only been invaded twice, when Great Britain attempted to bring us back into the colonial fold during the War of 1812 and in 1846, when Mexico launched a brief incursion across the disputed Rio Grande. During the ensuing 158 years, no member of the U.S. military has fought or died while repelling an invader. 9/11 demonstrated that the Pentagon doesn't consider a foreign incursion a major threat; that's why they assigned 12 "ground-based" Air National Guard jets to guard the the entire country.

If you participate in a war of retribution, are you "fighting for your country"? There have only been four attacks on American soil by a foreign power. All were carried out by Japan during World War II: Pearl Harbor, the now-forgotten submarine strafing of a California oil refinery, balloon-borne bombs dropped without casualties on Oregon and Washington state, and an air raid on Dutch Harbor, a remote U.S. outpost on Alaska's Aleutian Islands, in which 43 residents died. Japan and Germany's declarations of war intuitively appear to justify the sacrifice of 291,557 American soldiers in World War II, but were those deaths necessary to defend us? There is no evidence that the Axis intended to invade the U.S., nor did it possess the logistical capability to occupy it. The defeat of Nazism liberated millions from tyranny, but that was a happy byproduct of a war we fought to expand our military and economic influence. Right or wrong, World War II was a war of choice against Germany and one of retribution against Japan.

What about avenging an attack, not on U.S. soil, but against an American facility overseas? In 1986 President Reagan ordered bombings in Libya in retaliation for the bombing of a German disco that killed off-duty American soldiers. Moammar Khaddafi's young daughter, among others, were killed. Subsequent intelligence proved that Libya had had nothing to do with the nightclub attack, but-- even setting that aside--it's a stretch to argue that the pilots who bombed Libya were "fighting for their country." Moreover, even retaliatory strikes don't occur frequently. The most recent bona fide assault on a foreign asset by another country took place in 1979 when Iranians took over the American embassy in Tehran. U.S. overseas assets are rarely attacked.

The truth is, U.S. troops are hardly ever called upon to defend the territory of the U.S. or its outposts--military bases, embassies and consulates. Of the approximately 250 deployments of U.S. armed forces since 1798, the majority have been preemptive actions against possible future threats, or wars of aggression waged to advance American geopolitical interests.

81,243 American soldiers died in combat during the Korean, Vietnam and first Gulf wars. True, had the U.S. not gotten involved, a unified Korea might be suffering under the dictatorship of Kim Jung Il and Kuwait could be Iraq's 19th province. But those problems wouldn't have been ours. The snuffing out of over 80,000 young lives didn't do anything to make the U.S. safer, but that wasn't the point. We lost Vietnam and made a friend; we won in Korea and created our most dangerous enemy today.

For one American president after another, winning or losing doesn't matter. For an empire, military action is its own reward. Our willingness to wage war intimidates adversaries and their neighbors into giving us what we want: cheaper oil, military bases, favorable trading terms. When American sailors invaded the Falkland Islands in 1832, it was "to defend American interests." Ditto for 1855, when U.S. forces stormed Fiji. Ditto for the 1903 Dominican Republic action (where defending U.S. interests meant suppressing a popular revolution), Honduras in 1911, the Soviet Union in 1918, Lebanon in 1953...you get the idea. The soldiers who fought in those invasions were told they were fighting for their country. Those who lost their lives were called heroes.

Repeating a lie doesn't make it true.

Now we're at it again, this time in Iraq, a nation that would never have invaded us. Everyone, even the Bushists who manufactured the war from whole cloth, admits that Iraq never had weapons that could hurt us or means to hit us with them if they had. And we know that they didn't attack us--not on 9/11, not ever. Our soldiers may be doing their duty, fighting fiercely, and giving their lives in the bargain. But since Iraq neither threatens our freedom nor our borders, they're neither protecting our freedoms or fighting for America. The best anyone can say is that they're fighting for our country's geopolitical interests--and what those are is subject to interpretation.

-- Diogenes (What is this@likes answers.com), December 03, 2004.

Luke?

The President *never* apologized for misleading us into war--because he feels justified in the war. He never mislead us. We went to war, remember, not because we *believed* Saddam had WMD--(we know he did., he used them against his own people already)--but we went to war with Iraq to force them to comply with the law. Saddam would not comply with the resolution and kept stalling for more time and more time and more time and more time and more time and more time and more time and more time....it was during all that time--that he probably moved his WMD to another location. But that doesn't matter. That was not the actual reason given for going to war.

Remember resolution 1441

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 03, 2004.

Diogenes,

You are very short-sighted not to recognize that if the Middle East is allowed to contintue to brew in its own religious hatred of *infidels* and not kept in check--eventually, they would have made it over to our shores. 911 was just a small sample of things to come. We must always be on the watch. Going into Iraq has cut their activity and ability, and as far as I am concerned was strategically brilliant and justifiable!

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 03, 2004.

Gentlemen, fighting for one's country doesn't have to be defensive i.e. at the gates as the barbarian horde finally kicks through the city gates.

Fighting for the United States or for humanity in faraway places is justified when the cause is just and the evil manifest. Or what? We should have let Hitler rule and wipe out the Jews (and then Catholics) with impunity?

Had we NO responsibilty for those fellow Christians or indeed mere human beings suffering such ghastly repression?

If we can't legitimately go to war for human ideals abroad - or to preempt worse scenarios (like nuclear tipped German ICBMs - such as the A-3 missiles nearing completion in 1945) then what does this "principle" mean for humanitarian intervention in say, going abroad to stop famines, plagues, and other foreign problems?

After all, if our moral responsibility stops at the water's edge what are we doing helping feed the Afghanis?

Ah, but moral responsibility follows with capability - for better and worse. If you can stop a tyrant and do so within the limits as adduced by the just war theory, then you have a moral responsibility to try to. Otherwise you are as guilty as the man who watches a woman get raped without interviening.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 03, 2004.

Our greatest president, George Washington said, "Beware of foreign entanglements". When you stick your nose into anothers fight, it probably will get bloodied" (me)

-- TC (A@@b.com), December 03, 2004.

Anyone on this thread;

Where is flight 93? The pentagon has a hole in it that would not accomodate a piper cub, but somehow a 727, it's crew. , luggage. plane parts, passengers, all vanished. Nothing found? How can that be. Smeone posed that question to me the other day, and I had no answer. Do you?

-- Miriel (Festoctober@@msn.com), December 04, 2004.

Error I mean flight 77. I did a search and found

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

-- Miriel (Festoctober@msn.com), December 04, 2004.

The conspiracy theory has yet to give a credible explanation of what happened to the missing plane, passengers and crew.

Therefore, we likely know the truth.

I would suspect that much of the plane and passangers likely burned- up during impact.

Maybe the wings broke-off before it hit the pentagon because of the speed it was traveling?

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 04, 2004.

Urban Legends

-- (faith01@myway.com), December 04, 2004.

I would like to include my 2 cents worth. The photos are interesting, but leave much to be desired.

1. Why did all the security cameras not catch the plane in flight? 2. Why was the plane not heard, being onlly 100 feet above the ground.

3. Steel needs 2700 degrees to melt. Jet fuel only goes to 1800 degrees.

4. Why did the government confiscaate the film from a local gas station.

These are only a few questions that were not answered.

-- Woof woof (Spunkydog@bellwest.com), December 05, 2004.

I used to work in Crystal City, a half mile from the Pentagon. My carpool often dropped me off at the Pentagon (there is a public metro and bus stop there).

Many of the military people I rode with over the last 2 years told me of that day, and confirmed that it was a plane. One lady was on Route 110 and saw the plane come in.

Going 350 miles per hour the plane is going to cross the field of view of a security camera in less than a second - the cameras are running at less than TV crew camera speed so wouldn't have seen the plane going in.

As for parts - the plane hit the Helo pad first and then the building. Burning jet fuel melts alumninum. You can melt aluminum on an electric stove top...

A truck bomb would not have blackened the whole face of the building like that -

Hundreds of residents of Arlington saw the plane come in low and fast. If it didn't hit the Pentagon, what did it hit?

Reagan National Airport is a mile from the Pentagon and the flight path skirts the building by about a quarter mile. So residents are used to planes taking off and landing... the people who saw flight 77 come in were sure something was wrong as it was REALLY low and REALLY FAST.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 06, 2004.

There was not even atiny it of that airplane to be found. Someone took a picture outside, of a civilian picking up what appeared to be a piece of metal. That was it. they id no show us anything else. Meanwhile, on a chair, near the hole, there was an open book. The pages had not even been siinged.

-- Invisible plane (road@street.com), December 06, 2004.

Not true. They found one engine in the second ring.

By the time the aerial photos in question were shot, the jet fuel had burnt everything up. Plus physics being what they are, if the plane slammed into the building at 350 mph, it would have either gone completely into the building - not leaving any debris outside, or would have crumpled like a tin can, compressing the plan into a relatively confined shape of twisted and now burning aluminum.

As we know from reports, all 5 rings of the Pentagon were penetrated. The outer ring bore the brunt of the impact, but the body and tail went into the second and third rings. An engine blew into the second ring.

The damage is inconsistant with a truck bomb.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 07, 2004.

OK Joe, sure its pure happenstance that the Coalition invaded Iraq just after 9/11?

or, to put it another way, the Coalition would have invaded Iraq even if 9/11 had never happened?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), December 07, 2004.

Not a truck bomb, but a missile could do that damage.

-- Love a mystery (Interested@questions.com), December 07, 2004.

Maybe 9-11 was a betrayal and maybe it was not. Perhaps history willsupply the answer, but Pearl Harbor was indeed a betrayal, as history has proven. FDR was the first traitor of WW2.

The Attack on Pearl Harbor ~~ Paul V. Hartman ~~

It is highly likely that Franklin Roosevelt, desperate to get into the war to aid Britain, but constrained by heavy American isolationist pressures, allowed Pearl Harbor to occur, fully aware of all the warnings and intercepted code messages that flooded Washington prior to 12/7/41. We know this in part because of a diary entry made by then Secretary of War Harry Stimson, dated 11/25/41, following a White House meeting on the subject, which included this sentence: "The question was how we should maneuver them (the Japanese) into firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves."

Roosevelt was evidently convinced by the Navy that Pearl Harbor was impregnable. It was contemporary Navy opinion that any attacking enemy force would have to be exceedingly large to overcome the massive firepower (ships and planes) of the island. The Navy was sure that routine reconnaissance would detect any such large force before it could reach to within 800 miles of the island. (The Japanese launched their planes from 300 miles out.) It was Navy dogma that the harbor was too shallow for aircraft-launched torpedoes.

-- love a mystery (arethere answers@question.com), December 07, 2004.

A missile? How could a missile have blackened the whole front of the building while simultaneously making itself appear to hundreds of Arlington residents and workers to look like a passenger airliner?

As for Pearl Harbor, isn't it possible that like OUR brilliant Doolittle raid on Tokyo a couple months later that we were just asleep at the switch and made human mistakes?

Why is it that we ASSUME that all the pieces of the puzzle had to be apparent to EVERYONE or Roosevelt ahead of time? Is it just the need to feel superior and omniscient? Mistakes happen. People fail.

It happens all the time - and yet in big events we want to believe that someone knew the truth that we were not all dumb or caught off guard.

Still, we caught the Japs off guard all the time, so why couldn't they (or the Muslims) have pulled one over on us at least once?

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 08, 2004.