Note to self: Never, never, NEVER piss off Bill

>>>>
The left will rabidly attack the idea that we are going to Iraq for a moral purpose as well as a practical one. For them, for their what is left of their continuing sanity, it HAS to be aboit oil, money, revenge and whatever other base motivations they can hurl at us.
>>>>

That is their claim because they are morally bankrupt and so they can't see that there might be a morale reason.

>>>
There is a simple, but obscure reason for this, and my experience over the last few days is leading me to see it more clearly...

We have fact, history, logic and reason on our side. We also have great power, great wealth, great ingenuity and great courage. They have none of these things. All they have is 'compassion.' They see this as trumping all else.
>>>>

Not, not, not. This is contradictory. To be compassionate in the sense you are trying to state, they have to have morales. I have yet to meet someone without morales who had compassion.

Shannon

Dear Marius,

Is this how the U.S. should respond to dictators?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2550801.stm

Nothing like a lesson on moral courage from the Dutch.

Further, Marius' comment that Europe has 'learned its lesson' is also false.
8 Freedom loving European nations signed a letter to the UN just recently SUPPORTING the US. The United Kingdom, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Denmark, and Poland.

Those nations who did NOT sign are conspicuous by their absence. Marius is enough to make me ashamed of my Dutch heritage. Does he not remember Rotterdam? The atrocities of the Gestapo ranging throughout Holland? The V1 and V2 launch sites in the Netherlands raining terror on England? Or does he not see the comparison to today's Iraq launching SCUD missiles into Israel while their secret police raid homes in the night?

Marius, I urge you to read the story of the Dutch private who courageously shot General Karl Student during the airborne invasion - You should model yourself more on that man than Neville Chamberlain. One accomplished a lot for peace despite horrific consequences - the other guranteed war despite a few quiet weeks of peace.

Orion

'There are only two kinds of people I hate, those that hate others just because of their colour, national origin or religion; and the Dutch!"

Darren, Darren, Darren,
Have you learned NOTHING? The Dutch peacekeepers were TRYING To save them! They got out of the way, they didn't use violence, they talked, they made agreements, they tried sanctions, they tried isolating the invading Serbs, they used international pressure and opinion, they did EVERYTHING to prevent that atrocity!

Except take ACTION.

Orion

When people accuse the americans of wanting revenge or oil, they tell us more about themselves than they do about us. They cannot imagine anyone doing something for any other reason because THEY WOULDN"T!

The question, Bill, is will Marius respond to your letter or merely try to appease by slithering off into the murky emptiness of his 'compassion.'

The philosophy of appeasement: "I'd care that you're enslaved/tortured/denigrated/etc. if (and only if) there's nothing I can actually do about it. In the meantime I can protest the Masters/the flag/etc. and be on TV."

Well done, Bill. Marius doesn't understand that having his heart in the right place does not excuse having his head up his ass.

TO: Marius
RE: For What Its Worth...

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things.

The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling that thinks that nothing is worth fighting for is much worse.

The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself…."-John Stuart Mill (1868)

Enjoy,

Chuck(le)
[There is a word for people who rely on others for everything; their food, shelter, protection, their very existance. That word is 'slave'.]

Cowboy huh, them's fightin words. After all, some people just need hangin. Jeez that reminds me how much I love the movie, "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance".

I can't wait to form the Russo-Iraqi cartel to sell oil to the "European Community". Guess what, special rates for the French, heheheheehe.

Tex aka Casca

Compassion is cheap.

Action is dearly expensive, and carries the inherent risk of failure. It also requires that one think and plan, build and prepare and then ACT, instead of emote histrionically.

It also requires that you look at the situation and assess it realistically, instead of having a preconceived idea of how the world should be, and attempting to force what you observe into a pattern that lets you be 'compassionate' but doesn't require action.

The Dutch... are compassionate.

J.

Marius claims that "Europe has learnt it's lesson in ww2". Yet Europe permitted the slaughter of 200,000 muslims only a few hours from Berlin and Paris. Without American military might, the butchery would have continued. The evidence speaks for itself.

On second thought, a more accurate and less derrogatory version of my comment would be:

"Marius doesn't understand that having his heart in the right place does not excuse having his head IN THE SAND."

I'll behave myself from now on. Promise.

Easy, Bill. It isn't worth the emotional capital or dangerously-elevated blood pressure.

Marius, you are a walking, talking cliché. How brave and noble of you to rail against the United States, ctiticizing everything from the intelligence of its citizenry, to the competence of its dually-ELECTED leadership, to the valor of its military, to the worth of its existence in the world.

By your words, you have declared yourself a coward. Since you were arrogant enough to deign to speak for "europe and all the intelligent parts of the world", you paint all within that vague reference as cowards, as well.

You offer the foolish, naive, TIRED slogan "War with Saddam will only bring more war". Even if that WERE true, why would you care? Are the Dutch going to fight this or ANY war? (These are NOT the 1600's). Which European "power", (The UK excepted), will be at the forefront of any battle?

Free advice for you and all like-minded COWARDS throughout "europe and all the intelligent parts of the world": Before the war, SHUT UP. During the war, stay the hell out of the way. After the war, say "Thank you" to the United States for YET AGAIN sacrificing the blood an innocence of its youth, (My father left both of his in the Belgian snow in World War II), so that you and your unctuous brand of sniveling coffee-shop philosophers remain alive and free to tut-tut about the crudeness of the American "Cowboy".

Cowboys don't "tut-tut", Marius. They see a job that needs to be done, do it, then ride off into the sunset, (westward, as in "from Europe"), until they're needed again. (Which in the case of Europe, isn't likely to be long).

Yippee-Ki-Ay, M..... F.....

Cosmo, you were right the FIRST time.

I spend a great deal of time in the Netherlands and immediately recognize the whiny bickering tone of the sender's email. You would not receive this wanton crap from a Dutch woman, only a Dutch man. This is a country where feminism began and then ran amok, not only did women gain their deserved rights, they then proceeded to turn the men into the women they once were, one has to see it to believe it. The women run the country, and the men have assumed the persona of an American fifties housewife: Complaint ridden, disoriented, they whine and cower and are generally selfless and confused, and when they get angry, well look out for the silent treatment. Pointedly the most direct, energetic, and courageous thinker/politician to appear on the Dutch scene in a generation was the very gay Pim Fortuyn who began questioning what they hell were they doing with their country. He was shot in the head last year by a straight Dutchman who described himself as an animal rights activist.

You tell’em, Bill! I especially LOVE the cowboy part.

Wouldn’t it be great if people like Marius actually did learn some lessons from WWII? For example, you’re better off fighting sooner when they’re weak, rather than later when they’re strong; and you can’t negotiate “peace” with totalitarians, tyrants, and thugs, you have to win it.

It strikes me that the lack of children in modern Europe reflects exactly the kind of immaturity and fear of reality exemplified by Marius' thoughts. These socialist adult children have grown up in a society where other people give them money, protect them, tell them what to do, give them jobs they can't lose, educations they don't have to pay for, entertainment without cost or sane limits. No wonder they don't want to take on the responsibility of children. For them, life is one long free party. It's also no wonder that Europeans raised in such an environment rage at an America which IS shouldering responsibility, working, having children, disciplining itself, in short, living. How dare we show them up? How dare we put their childish Utopia in such peril? And how frightening it all must be to them. One could pity them if they weren't helping the evil ones of the earth threaten the world's chances for real freedom and authentic peace.

dually-ELECTED leadership.

I think you mean "selected." George Bush lost the popular vote, remember?

TO: All
RE: Troll Watch!!!

Don't feed the trolls lurking about.

Chuck(le)

As Bill said in an earlier post, Marius, we are you. We or our ancestors left Europe and other continents looking for something better. We found it. You or yours didn't. Your envy and cowardice are despicable. I'm glad neither your ancestors nor you are polluting our gene pool.

Saddle up, Slim. We got fence to mend.

Thank you Bill. Well put.

Thank goodness there are people in Europe that realize what is at stake and are willing to declare where they stand. (Not that you would know from reading the NY Times, of course)

Thanks, Solly. But, I still promise to behave . . . really I do . . .

One is drawn to the conclusion that Europe's view of cowboys is that of the 1950's Westerns: quick to take offense, draw, and shoot. The occasional idiot tourist aside, most Americans understand what cowboys really were: men who were living in a society unprotected by heavy police elements, and where a certain code (don't lie cheat or steal, because you'll face the consequences of a bullet or rope) enabled people to live in a frontier that would otherwise have been overwhelmingly deadly.

One must always remember: those movies were fictional, and the "insult" doesn't take.

(I am the child of two "cowboys"; U. of Wyoming grads.)

"I'LL DROP YOU WITH A BOOT TO THE SKULL, YOU-"

(reference to "Tollbooth Willy" deleted. Bill doesn't like profanity. :) But I take it he understands the undiluted anti-Marxist venom was greatly applauded in these quarters.

But er, do me a favour? CANADA was the primary liberator of the Dutch people. America helped us out, and we could never have freed Europe without them, but this is one liberation i'm DAMN proud to claim as our own.

Hey, someone's gotta wave the flag. ;) You do it for your nation, I do it for mine. And it's harder when everyone else is busy kissing up tot the dead relic of the UN, but I'm going to be here for WHEN, not if, they come around.

One girl did today- and if you want to know more, you'll have to buy a ticket (er. read my blog, dammit. ;) )

(/shamelessselfpromotion)

jeez, stupid thing thinks fake HTML tags are real ones... :P

"dually-ELECTED leadership.

I think you mean "selected." George Bush lost the popular vote, remember?"

To the chicken-heart that posted this drivel anonymously, you, too are an animated cliché. The popular vote, state-by-state, determines the number of ELECTORAL VOTES awarded to each Presidential candidate. (There ARE 535 other dually-elected officials, as well, genius. It's called "The Congress of the United States" - perhaps leftists libs have forgotten that body, given their preference to fabricate "law" from the judicial bench?). This is to prevent a candidate from simply "cherry-picking", and campaigning only in California, Texas, New York, Illinois, etc.

It is a process that was set forth in a yellowed old document called THE CONSTITUTION, "remember"?

And before you even TRY it, the Supreme Court vote that stopped the systematic, illegal and OBVIOUS vote-tampering in Florida was 7-2, NOT the 5-4 secondary decision leftists would rather focus upon.

Newflash, Anonymous, December 2000: Gore lost, and he isn't coming back.

Re: Your point about the lack of a non-violent plan.
I am around teachers all day, being a history teacher myself, so anyone who feels safe speaking about the war is anti-war. After all, stating openly that we should invade another country (using guns!) is undoubtedly against all of our speech codes- or at least it feels that way.
Having heard a total of three hundred hours of anti-Bush, anti-capitalist, anti-globalist, anti-unilateralist echo-chambering, I have yet to hear anyone give even a sketch of what we SHOULD do about Iraq.
This is the bliss of oppositionalism- never having to say you're sorry, because you haven't done a damn thing.
Thanks, I feel better.
Dennis

Bill: One other point on motivation.

Let us say, for some unaccountable reason, the United States does what these idiots want. It cannot be that we would do so from necessity, from right, from reason, from interest, all of which conclusively argue the opposite course. The only possible cause for our taking the supine way out would be that it's what these idiots command. Add to that, the demonstration of power lies in getting a man to do what he would not otherwise do. They measure their self-worth by what it costs others; the greater the suffering they can exact, the better they feel about themselves.

Granted, this doesn't explain everything, but it's a large part of it. Consider: When was the last time anyone recalls them putting their vicious stridency to use on behalf of a cause which was also, incidentally, correct and just? One would think they could manage to be right every once in a while, and yet it never happens. The enormous and costly error -- the costs, naturally, borne by others -- is the thing they want.

Canada in da house, Woooot! Duly noted!

Chuck Pelto:
"...rely on others for everything; their food, shelter, protection, their very existance. That word is 'slave'."

And another one, as well. That word is "child."

Rohan:
"CANADA was the primary liberator of the Dutch people."

Won't you let us, at least, claim Eindhoven? Huh? Pretty please? :(

TO: CGeib
RE: Child(ish)

"And another one, as well. That word is "child."" -- CGeib

Children 'grow up'. [Note: I think its because they can actually 'learn'. Especially if we, their parents, teach them well. HOME SCHOOL!!!!]

Slaves never do.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Children: Messages to a future we will never see.]

P.S. You are a good parent, only if your grand-children grow up to be good citizens.

P.P.S. Thanks for bringing all of that back to me.

Am I the only person who's grown completely sick of hearing our "friends" in Europe prattle about the lessons they learned in World War II? The argument runs that, through their suffering they somehow or another learned the horrors of war and ... blah blah bah... The thing is, though, is that it isn't true. In the 50's France and Britain were ready to go to war (justifiably, I might add) against Egypt over the Suez. Lets also not forget France's little forays in Algeria and Indochina. Or Britain's (again, entirely justiable) war against Argentina over the Falklands. A newsflash for Marius and his ilk: Europe didn't stay out of major wars for the last 50 years because its citizens had gained any profound moral stature; they avoided wars because they had armies - the U.S. & Soviet Union - effectively occupying them (preventing internal fighting) and attending to their security needs (obviating the need for exernal conflict.

As many have noted, you really nailed it, Bill, on the "cowboy" bit, and your remarks finally made something go click in my mind, clarifying something that has long baffled me. Europeans have thrown the word at us for a long time, probably starting with LBJ, certainly picking up the pace with Reagan, always with glowering expressions. Always they clearly expected a certain reaction from us, a certain huffing and puffing and how dare you, sir. But they never got it, which seemed to send them even further round the bend, and now I understand. They actually expected us to be insulted and offended by the term. They really did, and still do. How little they understand!

It's fun to imagine turning it around. You know, being in an argument with a Frenchman who finally makes you so mad that you just lash out verbally, yelling, "You... you... you... INTELLECTUAL!!!"

Just imagine his baffled expression, staring as you stomp off angrily and thinking to himself, "Sacre bleu, but if he was angry, why did he call me THAT?"

Bill,

You did a great (as usual) job of savaging the Dutch whiner, Marius. As for painting the entire Dutch people with the brush of cowardice, as some here have done, I know there are a few, at least, in the Netherlands who remember and understand. Every year, the regiments of the 82nd Airborne Division get letters from the good people of Eindhoven on the anniversary of their liberation from the Germans in 1944. Some of these letters are from people who were around then; others are from the children or even grandchildren of the people who were around in 1944. All of these people thank the paratroopers of the 82nd for fighting and dying to smash the German domination of their town. Perhaps Marius could drive his Mini or take the train down to Eindhoven and talk to some of the old folks there. While he's at it, he could chat with the people in Arnhem, Valkenswaard, Nijmeigen, Oosterbeek, and Groesbeek who were there in the 'forties and lived under German occupation. Marius might learn a little about what a cruel empire that causes "more suffering, more pain" really looks like, e.g. Greater Germany. I don't expect Marius to understand, however. He seems hypnotized by the notion that national strength automatically equals national immorality. Well Marius, I'll make a bet with you. If the people of the Netherlands need help in the future, I bet the USA will be there. Where will you be?

Re : my previous comment

If I mis-spelled any Dutch proper nouns, I apologize. I don't speak or read that language, and the preponderance of double vowels has always thrown me for a loop.

We didn't say America didn't do ANYTHING. Like I said, we appreciate your help. It's just that we did the most, and could you just give us that much? It's not like our idiot government has left our military in a state to liberate Iraq in the same manner. :( :(

The Cloggies should have learned something from WWII. The only way to negotiate with a dictator/tyrant is from a position of strength (your troops standing in his capitol). That is is the way we negotiated the surrender of Germany, and Japan. See how nicely that worked out.

to whomever posted the link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2550801.stm

man...that is ALL the response necessary!

"...not worth dying for.". if a person can find nothing worth dying for, how can they claim anything worth living for? i guess i'll go to my local library, brimming with dutch wisdom to find out more. i'll drive my ultra-fuel-efficient dutch car. how many hundreds of years of a head start did the USA spot these guys anyway? back to excelling at world cup soccer for them i guess. oh...wait...wrong again. sorry.
rb

Dear Mr. Whittle,
Thanks so much for your essays.

I took the liberty of posting your url on the kayak surfing board I frequent (Surfzone), predictably there was some outrage over the fact that it was way "off-topic" and it got a lot of the young greenie surferdudes parroting the "its all about the oil" nonsense, probably while driving their SUVs to the beach, but I figured if even one person added your blog to their bookmarks, it was worth the effort and the static. Thanks again, Hunt

Hmmm... so Bill likes cowboys....

[sets aside the cowboy lever gun as gift for Bill when he passes through Texas]

:-)

I just got back from a PERFECT day: Flying a very sexy little italian model all over the stunningly beautiful city of San Diego, followed with My Dinner With Steven -- Den Beste, no less. What a wonderful, gentle, brilliant man. I might write more on this tomorrow.

To Rohan Trevalyan: I do deeply and sincerely apologize for the sleight. It was the Canucks that led the way. Say what you want about their current government, but when you put Canadian troops in the field there are none better.

(Rootin'-tootin', gun-totin' (but civilized!) Mounties are getting rare these days. We have to water and nourish the ones we have.)

Note to R/T: MAKE MORE CANADIAN SOLDIERS, EH?

Also, go visit his weblog. Go for the Rohan, stay for the Trevalyan.

More on this incredible "Gang of 8" letter in a short while. I think this is the best news we've gotten since the fall of Afghanistan.

As always, thanks to my many friends for guarding the property while I was away. You are the intellectual equivelant of the Matrix Arsenal.

PS Dear Mrs. Du Toit: Bill likes Cowboy Cheerleaders even better. Just in case you're still setting aside stuff for my visit, is all.

[Makes note: Inform the lap dancers that they should be sure to wear their stirrups and hats--exnay the bomber jacket and throttle dance.]

On Candian Soldiers - many of whom come from the Mounties...I always liked the unofficial 'Mountie Ratio' -
1 Riot.
1 Mountie.

Orion

(My step-father was from Saskatchewan and my brother was born in Vancouver - Go Canada, eh?)

Bill: You forgot to ask the guy what he was smoking? But, there are two kinds of Dutchmen, and they are poles apart, believe me. The older Dutch people remember the Occupation, and the Gestapo, and they understand what it is all about.

And, they've instilled some good moral standards in many of the young. But then, you've got a lot of guys like Marius. There are people like him whimpering all over Europe, all over North America, and in other areas too. They don't understand until they feel the heel of a boot from a tyrant's stormtrooper on the back of their neck, but then...it's too late.

We'll go with Cowboys. Teddy Roosevelt wasn't ashamed of the tag, so why should we be? Great letter, and you are getting noticed. Let's put up Bill's URL on bulletin boards too!

Howard

It is a FACT, they don't execute afghanistan women in hte stadium anymore - due to the publicity it may attract they've decided to do it move it to outside the stadium.

Also, for adultery, they don;t throw large stones at people until they die - now they use smaller ones.

The fact is that Shariah law is still in place, slightly relaxed, but the fundamentals of it's applicaiton have not changed dramatically.

This is liberation?

Please refer yourself to recent statements released by RAWA

John

It is a FACT, they don't execute afghanistan women in hte stadium anymore - due to the publicity it may attract they've decided to do it move it to outside the stadium.

Also, for adultery, they don;t throw large stones at people until they die - now they use smaller ones.

The fact is that Shariah law is still in place, slightly relaxed, but the fundamentals of it's applicaiton have not changed dramatically.

This is liberation?

Please refer yourself to recent statements released by RAWA

John

This is an example, a quote from a recent report made by Human Right's Watch

>
"Many people outside the country believe that Afghan women and girls have had their rights restored. It's just not true," says Zama Coursen-Neff, co-author of the report.

"The US-led coalition justified the war against the Taliban in part by promising that it would liberate Afghanistan's women and girls ... The international community has broken that promise."

While conditions in Herat are better than under the Taliban, Mr Khan [Herat governer] has pressured women not to work for foreign non-governmental organisations, has urged them to stick to teaching in girls' schools, and has ordered them not to drive.

Women and girls are afraid to go out except on essential business because of tight restrictions enforced not only by the police but by adolescent boys trained to spy on them.

A doctor at Herat's only hospital told Human Rights Watch that police bring in about 10 girls and women a day for "chastity" tests.
>

john

So Europe learned its lesson of WWII? We French learned the hard way what you gain from appeasement (even if some retarded ones seem to have forgotten).
Because in 1936 when german troops occuppied Rhenania they had orders to withdraw in front of any French troop and Hitler had told he would resign. And the reason was that the still puny German army had not a chance. In 1938 when Germany invaded Austria we still could have crushed it with ease.
Later during the Czech crisis we were still stronger than Germany and in addition Russia was still opposing Germany and would have helped the Czech (who would have been a tough nut to crack with their powerful fortifications and their T38 tank who was better and faster than the German ones). In 1939 when we finally declared war Russia had switched sides but the German army was still badly equiped (most of its tanks had only machine guns and would have been wiped out by the gun-armed french tanks) and we couuld have taken adavantage that the Germans were busy in Poland. But we waited and in 1940 it was the Germans who had the strongest army.

So when I think in appeasemnt, I think in the 1940 humiliation, in the occupation, in the millions of dead, in the atrocities in Yugoslavia, Poland and Russia, in the russian prisoners used to test the gas chambers, in Mengele's experiments, in the Jews and gipsy new borns slaughtered for the crime of being born Jews or gipsy. All of this could have been prevented without blood shed if we had taken action when Germany occuppied Rhenania, all of this could have been prevented at a far lesser cost if we had taken any of the other golden opportunities we had. That is what you get when you let the monster grow instead of quashing him when he is small and weak.

And there is another thing: when you fail to quash the monster you are _resposible_ for his crimes. The Nazis were trialed at Nuremberg and some of them (far too few) were hanged for their crimes, but there should have been another trial at Munich for the appeasers and pacifists who had made thse horrors possible. And I see no reason why some of them shouldn't have been hanged just like the high ranking nazis were.

Oh, yes, John! Everything should be absolutely PERFECT in Afghanistan by now! After all, it's been MONTHS!

If it were a matter of the United States' volition and preference, utilizing only U.S. personnel, rather than a diluted "coalition" that includes "regional" and "ethnic" allies, advising all as to the proper Muslim approach, perhaps the Afghanis would be closer to full freedom.

Your only references are from "RAWA" and "Human Rights Watch"? No noticable political bent or agenda there! Tell me, John, is the United States on either or both of these august groups' list of human rights offenders?

I have an old friend who is a logistician in the U.S. Army, recently deployed to the Persian Gulf, (Gee, wonder why?), having spent nearly the entire duration of the United States' liberation of, and subsequent reformation efforts in Afghanistan, on the ground, "in country" even before the air strikes began. He was at home briefly between assignments, and I'm sure you will be shocked to hear that his descriptions of events in Afghanistan following its liberation differ somewhere around 180° from that you've parroted from these organizations of dubious veracity.

Although I am sure that these groups boast a fabulous array of celebrity spokespeople, I'm afraid I'll have to lend just a tad bit more credence to President Bush, to U.S. military accounts, and to the personal account of a man who has served this country with distinction for 20 years, rather than to the shrill naiveté of Sting, Moby, Susan Sarandon, et al., or to yours, for that matter.

Are you Dutch, by any chance?

Here's a Washington Post article that details a further 17 European Freedom Lovers who have signed up SUPPORTING Bush's plan to remove Hussein...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20030131-78962774.htm

Clearly there are still many in Europe who understand Freedom and the cost to obtain it.

Orion

*DOH* Washington TIMES - fingers moving faster than brain this morning! :-)

Orion

Enjoyed the State of the Union? You probably felt butterflies in your stommach hearing all the retoric BuSh. I'm looking forward to hear some real evidence that Iraq really has some "weapons of mass distruction". You (supporters from Bill) are all far to emotional about the whole subject. Your all wannabe Whyat Earps. Forgetting your own princibles of law. We don't live in the wild west anymore with attitudes like "Shoot first, cut up his body and keep his ears. Ask questions later". Ok Saddam is a real bastard. No one questions that. And he deserves a bullet through his head. But that's not the issue here. The question is: "Where is the smoking gun?". If you've got no proof, you have to let the man walk. You can't organize a lynch party and deputize the rest of the world. Because it's taking matters in your own hands. Which is why we have laws. According to same princible the UN was formed which is ignored by Bush when it fits his needs (if you don't share our views we're going in alone). But he uses the iraq's non-compliance to UN resolutions as a reason to invade iraq. Ignoring the views other nations have. There's simply no justification to start a war.
PS. Sorry for my bad English.

Your English is quite good for a non-native speaker....And no one really cares in posts anyway...(For future reference, it's Wyatt Earp - good to get names right no matter the language). Further, Mr. Earp WAS a Policeman....He was doing his job so the analogy is quite apt.

We HAVE followed International Law - now we're telling everyone else that we expect THEM to as well. Hans Blix's report has detailed THOUSANDS of tons of missing WMD's and many other violations. We've shown constant violations of all pertinent UN resolutions on Iraq - and so far all the rest of the UN wants to keep ignoring those violations.

Well we've said we're not going to ignore them any more. To steal a line from a movie, "When Policemen break the law there is no law any more. Just a fight for survival." The UN is playing the role of world Cop - and failing. So we'll take care of it. Fortunately a lot of our friends are also realizing how badly the UN is failing and are joining with us to do the job for them.

Orion

Dutch whining pinko coward:

After so incredibly vapid a screed of worn-out clichés, all you worry about is your "bad English"?

"Real evidence"? Ask the Kurds - the ones that survived Hussein's gassings. Those chemical warheads that were found last week are among the many objects specifically forbidden under the terms of Iraq's surrender under the auspices of the United Nations. How about the German-supplied centrifuge for enriching uranium? We tend to care about the oppression of ANY people, American or not. (See Afghanistan, Kosovo, Vietnam, Korea, oh, and ALL OF EUROPE, among others).

And yes, Americans are just little "emotional" when it comes to states that sponsor and succor terrorists, having lost 3000 in one day. Crazy, isn't it? Of course We shouldn't expect any empathy from a continent inhabited by the descendants of people who wondered not at all where all those trainloads of Jews were headed, but were instead simply glad they were gone. Let's see, which country WAS primarily responsible for finally ending that?

Here's a hint: It was a bunch of "Wyatt Earps" dressed in olive drab who didn't "wannabe" there.

Our PRINCIPLES of law have not been ignored. Our country simply doesn't kowtow to the United Nations, and that IS one of the Principles of our law. This is a particularly stupid thing to say, since the U.S. is working to enforce the decisions the U.N. made but has lacked the will or courage to enforce itself. (As though that collection of dismal failures, despots, and losers could do ANYTHING without the United States). We "go it alone" because we are strong enough to do so, and do so more often than not for peoples who cannot defend themselves, or to prevent undeniably EVIL events from occuring. Our Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors, and Marines are buried throughout the world, having sacrificed all for the freedom and safety of others.

"cut up his body and keep his ears"

No, genius - that is the sort of barbarity practiced throughout the regions we are currently seeking to drag out of the stone age and into civilized society.

"Saddam is a real bastard. No one questions that. And he deserves a bullet through his head".

What was your first clue? What do you think "regime change" means?

"...he uses the iraq's non-compliance to UN resolutions as a reason to invade iraq. Ignoring the views other nations have. There's simply no justification to start a war."

Non-compliance with the U.N. Resolutions (pick any dozen), not only justifies going to war, it is REQUIRED to enforce the resolution. These "other nations" SIGNED the resolutions, authorizing use of force if necessary, to ENFORCE compliance with the resolutions. None of these "other nations" would ever have the courage to do more than sit idly by as the U.S. once again took on all the risk, all the expense, and suffered all the casualties necessary to ultimately ensure their safety. I am quire certain that these "other nations" would reserve the right to bitch about the manner in which it was done, and want a full portion of the credit after the fact, however.

"Enjoyed the State of the Union?"

Damn right I did. Enjoy your unearned peace and security provided by the largesse of a country you haven't even the grace to thank for it?

To: Dutch Whining Pinko etc.

There doesn't have to be a smoking gun. Read UN Resolution 1441. The burden is upon Iraq to demonstrate that it has destroyed all its weapons of mass destruction as well as its capacity for producing them. This is something which Iraq agreed to do in order to obtain a CEASEFIRE in 1991. The burden of proof is upon Iraq to do this, as they agreed to do. In the UN report of Jan. 27th Hans Blix stated that the Iraqis are not fully cooperating. It is the Iraqis who are violating the "law," assuming that you consider UNSC binding resolutions to be law you are refering to.

I submit to you that a "law" which no one intends to enforce is not a law at all, it is a meaningless platitude which mocks the very concept of law. Is this "multilateralism" at its finest? If so it is no wonder that many in the US, Europe, Australia and elsewhere see it as a toothless sheep in wolf's clothing.

Again, read Resolution 1441. To say that it requires a "smoking gun" is nothing more than outright ignorance or a lie. And contrary to what many people seem to believe, the truth remains the truth no matter how many times its existence is denied.

And yes, we are all Evil Cowboys here across the Atlantic. Just remember that it is not wise to break a promise you have made to a "Cowboy," because a terrible vengeance may be close at hand. Saddam Hussein has made this mistake. We shall see what comes.

The problem with smoking guns is that you can not find them until after they have been fired.

Saddam Hussein's Defiance of United Nations Resolutions

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

Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated sixteen United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs) designed to ensure that Iraq does not pose a threat to international peace and security. In addition to these repeated violations, he has tried, over the past decade, to circumvent UN economic sanctions against Iraq, which are reflected in a number of other resolutions. As noted in the resolutions, Saddam Hussein was required to fulfill many obligations beyond the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Specifically, Saddam Hussein was required to, among other things: allow international weapons inspectors to oversee the destruction of his weapons of mass destruction; not develop new weapons of mass destruction; destroy all of his ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers; stop support for terrorism and prevent terrorist organizations from operating within Iraq; help account for missing Kuwaitis and other individuals; return stolen Kuwaiti property and bear financial liability for damage from the Gulf War; and he was required to end his repression of the Iraqi people. Saddam Hussein has repeatedly violated each of the following resolutions:

UNSCR 678 - November 29, 1990

Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait) "and all subsequent relevant resolutions."

Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area."

UNSCR 686 - March 2, 1991

Iraq must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War.

Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.

Iraq must accept liability under international law for damages from its illegal invasion of Kuwait.

UNSCR 687 - April 3, 1991

Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."

Iraq must "unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material" or any research, development or manufacturing facilities.

Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities."

Iraq must not "use, develop, construct or acquire" any weapons of mass destruction.

Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs and mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify elimination of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.

Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.

Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.

Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis and others.

Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.

UNSCR 688 - April 5, 1991

"Condemns" repression of Iraqi civilian population, "the consequences of which threaten international peace and security."

Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population.

Iraq must allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations to those in need of assistance.

UNSCR 707 - August 15, 1991

"Condemns" Iraq's "serious violation" of UNSCR 687.

"Further condemns" Iraq's noncompliance with IAEA and its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security Council deems Iraq in full compliance.

Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.

Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

Iraq must cease attempts to conceal or move weapons of mass destruction, and related materials and facilities.

Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors to conduct inspection flights throughout Iraq.

Iraq must provide transportation, medical and logistical support for UN and IAEA inspectors.

UNSCR 715 - October 11, 1991

Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors.

UNSCR 949 - October 15, 1994

"Condemns" Iraq's recent military deployments toward Kuwait.

Iraq must not utilize its military or other forces in a hostile manner to threaten its neighbors or UN operations in Iraq.

Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors.

Iraq must not enhance its military capability in southern Iraq.

UNSCR 1051 - March 27, 1996

Iraq must report shipments of dual-use items related to weapons of mass destruction to the UN and IAEA.

Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 1060 - June 12, 1996

"Deplores" Iraq's refusal to allow access to UN inspectors and Iraq's "clear violations" of previous UN resolutions.

Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 1115 - June 21, 1997

"Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "clear and flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.

Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.

UNSCR 1134 - October 23, 1997

"Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.

Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.

UNSCR 1137 - November 12, 1997

"Condemns the continued violations by Iraq" of previous UN resolutions, including its "implicit threat to the safety of" aircraft operated by UN inspectors and its tampering with UN inspector monitoring equipment.

Reaffirms Iraq's responsibility to ensure the safety of UN inspectors.

Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 1154 - March 2, 1998

Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the "severest consequences for Iraq."

UNSCR 1194 - September 9, 1998

"Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend cooperation with" UN and IAEA inspectors, which constitutes "a totally unacceptable contravention" of its obligations under UNSCR 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.

Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors, and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

UNSCR 1205 - November 5, 1998

"Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation" with UN inspectors as "a flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.

Iraq must provide "immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspectors.

UNSCR 1284 - December 17, 1999

Created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace previous weapon inspection team (UNSCOM).

Iraq must allow UNMOVIC "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access" to Iraqi officials and facilities.

Iraq must fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War prisoners.

Calls on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies to its people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without discrimination.

Additional UN Security Council Statements

In addition to the legally binding UNSCRs, the UN Security Council has also issued at least 30 statements from the President of the UN Security Council regarding Saddam Hussein's continued violations of UNSCRs. The list of statements includes:

UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 28, 1991
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 5, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 19, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 28, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 6, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 11, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 12, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, April 10, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 17, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, July 6, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, September 2, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 23, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 24, 1992
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 8, 1993
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 11, 1993
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 18, 1993
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 28, 1993
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 23, 1993
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, October 8, 1994
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 19, 1996
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 14, 1996
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, August 23, 1996
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 30, 1996
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 13, 1997
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, October 29, 1997
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 13, 1997
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 3, 1997
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 22, 1997
UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 14, 1998

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html

In 2001, an Iraqi defector, Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri, said he had visited twenty secret facilities for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Mr. Saeed, a civil engineer, supported his claims with stacks of Iraqi government contracts, complete with technical specifications. Mr. Saeed said Iraq used companies to purchase equipment with the blessing of the United Nations - and then secretly used the equipment for their weapons programs.

Iraq admitted to producing biological agents, and after the 1995 defection of a senior Iraqi official, Iraq admitted to the weaponization of thousands of liters of anthrax, botulinim toxin, and aflatoxin for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs and aircraft.

United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) experts concluded that Iraq's declarations on biological agents vastly understated the extent of its program, and that Iraq actually produced two to four times the amount of most agents, including anthrax and botulinim toxin, than it had declared.

UNSCOM reported to the UN Security Council in April 1995 that Iraq had concealed its biological weapons program and had failed to account for 3 tons of growth material for biological agents.

The Department of Defense reported in January 2001 that Iraq has continued to work on its weapons programs, including converting L-29 jet trainer aircraft for potential vehicles for the delivery of chemical or biological weapons.

The al-Dawrah Foot and Mouth Disease Vaccine Facility is one of two known biocontainment level-three facilities in Iraq that have an extensive air handling and filtering system. Iraq has admitted that this was a biological weapons facility. In 2001, Iraq announced that it would begin renovating the plant without UN approval, ostensibly to produce vaccines that it could more easily and more quickly import through the UN.

Saddam Hussein continues its attempts to procure mobile biological weapons laboratories that could be used for further research and development.

Chemical Weapons

Saddam Hussein launched a large-scale chemical weapons attack against Iraq's Kurdish population in the late 1980s, killing thousands. On at least 10 occasions, Saddam Hussein's military forces have attacked Iranian and Kurdish targets with combinations of mustard gas and nerve agents through the use of aerial bombs, 122-millimeter rockets, and conventional artillery shells. Saddam Hussein continues his efforts to develop chemical weapons:

Gaps identified by UNSCOM in Iraqi accounting and current production capabilities strongly suggest that Iraq maintains stockpiles of chemical agents, probably VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard.

Iraq has not accounted for hundreds of tons of chemical precursors and tens of thousands of unfilled munitions, including Scud variant missile warheads.

Iraq has not accounted for at least 15,000 artillery rockets that in the past were its preferred vehicle for delivering nerve agents, nor has it accounted for about 550 artillery shells filled with mustard agent.

Iraq continues to rebuild and expand dual-use infrastructure that it could quickly divert to chemical weapons production, such as chlorine and phenol plants.

Iraq is seeking to purchase chemical weapons agent precursors and applicable production equipment, and is making an effort to hide activities at the Fallujah plant, which was one of Iraq's chemical weapons production facilities before the Gulf War.

At Fallujah and three other plants, Iraq now has chlorine production capacity far higher than any civilian need for water treatment, and the evidence indicates that some of its chlorine imports are being diverted for military purposes.

Nuclear Weapons

Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program before the Gulf War and continues his work to develop a nuclear weapon:

A new report released on September 9, 2002 from the International Institute for Strategic Studies - an independent research organization - concludes that Saddam Hussein could build a nuclear bomb within months if he were able to obtain fissile material.

Iraq has stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb. In the last 14 months, Iraq has sought to buy thousands of specially designed aluminum tubes which officials believe were intended as components of centrifuges to enrich uranium.

Iraq has withheld documentation relevant to its past nuclear program, including data about enrichment techniques, foreign procurement, weapons design, experimental data, and technical documents.

Iraq still has the technical expertise and some of the infrastructure needed to pursue its goal of building a nuclear weapon.

Saddam Hussein has repeatedly met with his nuclear scientists over the past two years, signaling his continued interest in developing his nuclear program.

Ballistic Missiles

Iraq is believed to be developing ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometers - as prohibited by the UN Security Council Resolution 687.

Discrepancies identified by UNSCOM in Saddam Hussein's declarations suggest that Iraq retains a small force of Scud-type missiles and an undetermined number of launchers and warheads.

Iraq continues work on the al-Samoud liquid propellant short-range missile (which can fly beyond the allowed 150 kilometers). The al-Samoud and the solid propellant Ababil-100 appeared in a military parade in Baghdad on December 31, 2000, suggesting that both systems are nearing operational deployment.

The al-Rafah-North facility is Iraq's principal site for testing liquid propellant missile engines. Iraq has been building a new, larger test stand there that is clearly intended for testing prohibited longer-range missile engines.

At their al-Mamoun facility, the Iraqis have rebuilt structures that had been dismantled by UNSCOM that were originally designed to manufacture solid propellant motors for the Badr-2000 missile program.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect3.html

Nick:

One-line WISDOM.

Carlee:

LONG, but unambiguous, isn't it?

There are plenty of smoking guns. However, they are camouflaged by ignorance and obfuscation!!!

Bill,

Interesting article in last week's Economist that demolishes the "it's all about oil" arguement completely. Can't be, because they haven't got enough and the oilfields will take $40B to rebuild.

Cannooks, Friendly French and Dutch Pinko:

I try to remember that governments in the West may be representative, but not of all their citizens. So, when I hear drivel from some jack*ss from France or Canada or where ever, I try to remember that millions of his countrymen are probably as horrified by his remarks as I am whenever Clinton- or God forbid, Chomsky- makes a speech.
One word buys the Canadians a huge amount of slack with me: Dieppe.

Dutch Pinko: You seem to be under a misapprehension. We will be in accordance with the relevent laws when we splash Saddam all over his palace without proving guilt in court. The crimes took place in Iraq, and when has due process or proof been a part of B'aathist justice?
This is a sad state for a legal system, I know. But then, I just outlined the solution (see"splash" above)
Dennis

Hope you were standing on a tarp when you gutted that weasel.

Nicely done Bill, five stars.

So much to respond to. Do want me to? And if so, what first? No need to drown you in pages and pages of boring stuff...

Marius,
I would think that Bill - and the readers here - would appreciate a well-reasoned response. Obviously 'pages and pages of boring stuff' would be pointless. However a clear statement of your points with backing facts would be welcome judging from past posts and responses.

As one of my writing instructors put it - Concrete, Clear, and Concise. Perhaps you could spend a few minutes jotting down an outline in order to respond to all the posts in a choesive fashion.

Orion

Sorry for the two-fer...But my Fiance' had an interesting analogy I wanted to post to those who feel we should continue giving sanctions et. al. a chance...

Imagine that your daughter goes to kindergarten in 1991. There she is stalked, harrassed and beaten up by a bully and his friends on a daily basis.

You talk with the bully. You negotiate with the bully. You send the bully to detention, etc. Other people talk with the bully. This goes on until she graduates from High School in 2003. As she heads to college you learn that the bully and his friends are going to the same school and conditions are going to continue. By now, even the school counselor (Let's call him Dr. Blix) admits that the bully is out of control. How long until you take action against this bully? How long until you remove him from the school? Or will you allow him to CONTINUE to harrass, beat, and rape your daughter throughout college and the rest of her life?

Orion

Very well Orion. That sounds like a good thing to do. Two things seem to dominate this discussion. The first being of course: why the hell shouldn't we beat the crap out of Saddam? And second: the cowboy-thing.

To start with the latter, there is a mixed image of cowboys here, and I think it exists in the rest of the world as well. It is mostly created by movies indeed. On the one hand cowboys strove for what they thought was worthy with all their heart. Which is admirable. On the other hand they also did tremendous and irrepairable damage to indian culture, nearing to genocide. They were able to do this because they had superior equipment. I think too much interference with other cultures will halt their development and may make them hold a grudge against us. Lot's of people allready seem to do so in the middle east. So if in any way possible, I don't want to add to that. And I think nobody really wants that. And now I am allready talking about the first subject: as long as some world leaders appear to see possibilities to solve this in other way than with a war or some other kind of meddling I am willing to try that. (Which might actually require more ingenuity and courage than overwhelming your (outnumbered?) enemy with superior weapons.)

A short response to your story: I think there are a lot of people in the middle east who see the western countries as the bully. And indeed we have done a lot of bad things there, with the best of intentions, but it turned out the wrong way. Saddam Hussein's despicable 'revolution' for example was sponsored by some western nations.

Happy Chinese Newyear everybody!

Nice backpedal, Marius, but wholly inadequate in addressing the insults with which you peppered your first letter.

The explanations or justifications you offer are asinine. Yes, during the first century of this nation's history, Americans DID drive out those native to this land, and yes, nearly destroyed them entirely.

What point do you seek to make in citing "superior equipment"? Would it have been all right had all the fighting been hand-to-hand?
When in the course of human history has it not been thus? When has a land not been conquered in such a manner, and when did the combatant possessing superior weapons, leadership, skill, or sheer numbers NOT win? From the "Tortoise shell" formation of the Roman legion, to the pike square, to the crossbow, to gunpowder, those that advance, win over those that do not.

If you are complaining of the very fact that the land was conquered at all, then you must also have a beef with virtually the entire world. Which people remaining alive today are absolutely aboriginal, having never - not ONCE - pushed another people aside?

Does that make it "fair" or "right"? Irrelevant, because it ALREADY HAPPENED, and none are now alive to address or seek redress. Arguing the morality is an interesting academic exercise, but changes nothing. Regardless of the nature of its beginnings, no nation in the history of the world has done more to advance and improve the condition of mankind than the United States of America. That is an undeniable FACT.

You should also make note of the fact that the first to set forth upon the course you find so objectionable were from your precious "europe and all the intelligent parts of the world". That an inhabitant of a continent that has allowed genocide to occur within the last DECADE would see fit to judge events of well over a century ago, and to use that judgment as prima facie evidence that our current actions are simply more of the same is tortured sophistry at best.

Your next foolish "point" where you state that you "... think too much interference with other cultures will halt their development and may make them hold a grudge against us. Lot's of people allready seem to do so in the middle east."

Let's see...The US "interfered" with European "culture" HOW MANY TIMES? within the last 100 years, including rebuilding the smoldering ruins your incessant internal conflicts, (several nakedly genocidal in nature), left behind. Did that "halt" Europe's "development"?

Is Japan "less developed" for the United States having "interfered"? South Korea? Cite even ONE example where your hypothesis is at all proven.

So far as the Middle East, it was European "wisdom" that drew arbitrary lines on the map to form the entire region. How could it not be a Utopia by now? DO you imagine that the Arab nations would be better off without the result of US (and UK) "interference", i.e., NO OIL? The grudge that these people hold is borne of the fact that the tyrants that rule their lands do not make the largesse made available by the United States available to ALL, preferring to horde the near-incalculable riches for themselves.

These self-same tyrants then play upon ethnic, cultural and religious touchstones to place the blame for the peoples' woeful lot on the very source of their usurped prosperity.

It sometimes takes a LONG time, but the truth of the matter will eventually be seen, and the United States will assist in that day's coming. We will also foster freedom wherever it blooms. Such is the generosity of our nation.

Your next statement is LAUGHABLE: "...as long as some world leaders appear to see possibilities to solve this in other way than with a war or some other kind of meddling I am willing to try that."

The rest of the world ALLOWED the situation to develop. From the complacency of the entire Arab world, to the blatant complicity of Germany in providing uranium-enrichment technology, to France and Russia providing money for oil, to the United Nations never enforcing their own mandate, to China and North Korea supplying weaponry, these "world leaders" of which you think so highly have proven themselves either impotent or corrupt or BOTH.

Do you REALLY imagine any movement would even now be occurring if the United States had not just liberated Afghanistan with minimal civilian casualties were not mustering and breathtaking ease, and was not now mustering its forces around the Persian Gulf? How naive ARE you, Marius?

And THIS is the most insulting statement you make: that trying these vague "other ways" you suggest "... might actually require more ingenuity and courage than overwhelming your (outnumbered?) enemy with superior weapons."

You impugn the courage of the men and women of the United States Armed Forces. You imply that it is somehow not "fair" that the US might employ superior weaponry and numbers; that it somehow isn't fair play to simply "overwhelm" or "outnumber" one's enemy.

First, if it were one-on-one with baseball bats, the United States would ultimately triumph. Those to whom freedom is at the core of their lives always will. Second, the strategy you decry is EXACTLY the one that liberated the European continent from a scourge of its own making. It has worked every time it has been tried, and as long as people prefer not losing their loved ones unnecessarily, it will be the strategy of choice for all that CAN employ it.

You close as weakly as you began:

"I think there are a lot of people in the middle east who see the western countries as the bully. And indeed we have done a lot of bad things there, with the best of intentions, but it turned out the wrong way."

Cite some "bad things", and then balance them against everything GOOD: medicine, agriculture, food importation, technology, and education of the region's youth at US Universities, etc, etc, etc. Given any honest assessment, the scales will tend to balance overall to the good.

"Saddam Hussein's despicable 'revolution' for example was sponsored by some western nations."

His war against Iran was supported, ascribing to the philosophy that "the enemy of my enemies is my friend". It happened throughout the cold war, and since time immemorial. Iran was a proven enemy, and Iraq opposed them. The US lent assistance to Iraq. We also assisted Afghanistan shrug off the Soviet yoke, only to see it people become even more cruelly subjugated from within, and an embittered muhajadeen rise to kill OUR people. The alliance the Dutch formed with England in the 1600's worked to stave off Spain and Portugal. Was it borne of love or common purpose and survival?

We've paid the price, Marius, and yet we will continue to believe in the "better angels" within peoples' hearts, and continue to try. For every attempt that you would cite as failure, there are dozens of successes.

Criticize if you must, but don't bleat out a bunch of drivel and platitudes so saturated in cowardice and sanctimony. You speak of "other ways", but then fail utterly to offer one that hasn't already failed, or that is so naive and foolish as to be beyond any consideration.

You tried to modulate your tone from your first letter to your second. If it was sincere, then it is appreciated. If it was simply to try to diminish the contempt you received at the first, then you simply reinforce that contempt to the point of permanence.

Again, I will try to focus on your main arguments. If I am wrong, please point them out.

I think we should answer the question of what was fair or right. Not to judge those who committed those acts, but to answer the real question: do we want to do it again?

As an example of a culture that has stopped developping I would like to pick the whole of Africa. All their original culture has become museum-culture and their 'development' consists of taking over western habits and whatnot. All this is largely caused by german, french, english, spanish and dutch colonial... euhm... people who indeed drew arbitrary borderlines. A lot of people there devote their energy to killing each other in feuds that have their origin in those borders. A more precise example would be the racial seggregation in South Africa which they have only recently gotten rid of. Those were dutch colonists, indeed.

I do not have all the answers. This war is a clear action I can understand. The complexities of diplomacy and such are beyond me, but I am willing to put faith in specialists in that field. When they say there is no other option left, I will be sorry about it but then I agree a war is necessary.

I changed my tone. Have you read all the insults that targeted me even before I ever came to this site? I was angry at first. And to be honest I am not completely comfortable writing this right now. But I have allready learned a thing or two reading the comments here and I hope to learn more. This will not be possible if I make enemies out of you.

Marius,

Let me address your first point - that there are still options remaining to try. First, I disagree with this belief. We've BEEN trying for over 12 years to bring Iraq back into the community of civilized nations. There comes a point in time when one MUST use force - and that point is now.

There is ALWAYS something else to try. One of those something elses is the use of Force. Iraq has been warned repeatedly. In fact, they've been told several times that 'this is your last chance.' No doubt they no longer believe it - it's time to live up to our own rhetoric.

The Western nations are not the bad guys here. We are not - as you imply in your second point - invading peoples displacing indiginous peoples. We are attempting to reign in a clear and present danger to the entire civilized world. We've tried reason, sanctions, threats, resolutions, and diplomacy. We must now resort to force.

Iraq is the bad guy. They have consistantly and constantly made the choice to ignore the rest of the world. They have chosen to ignore our warnings and our attempts to negotiate. They have violated their agreements and broken their word. They have invaded their neighbors. They have bombed a peaceful nation (Isreal) that had no part in the coalition operating against them with weapons of terror. They have used weapons of mass destruction against their own citizens and against their enemies. By attempting to portray the nations pressuring Iraq as the bad guys you are simply shifting the blame from the criminal to the cop. As always, the criminal can stop the 'unfair persecution' by the cop by simply no longer committing crimes.

The choice is theirs. The world has REPEATEDLY told them what they must do to be welcome again in the community of nations. What they must do to again gain access to world aid, medicines, investment, development and all the free help that comes from being a partner in a civilized world is to behave in a civilized fashion.

The choice is theirs. The line has been drawn.

Orion

Marius,

The issue of European colonialism in Africa is of no relation to the issue of Iraq's non-compliance with UN resolutions or the use of force to enforce those resolutions.

Every nation has made mistakes. Even those developing nations - they were slaughtering each other long before the Europeans arrived. But again - past mistakes have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Succinctly: Should the US and other nations use force to gain Iraq's compliance with dozens of UN resolutions and to remove a clear and present danger to the Iraqi people, their neighbors, and the civilized world as a whole?

We have argued - and supported with facts, reason, emotion, and logic - that we should.

What argument do you make that we should not?

As to any insults that may have been directed your way, I urge you to ignore them. If nothing else, you and I can have a nice discussion about the question at hand. And as people see you discussing with dispassionate facts and logic, any insults will be disproved in passing.

Orion

It is strange that continental Europe seems to vacillate between extreme pacifism and extreme fascism.

Europe is now facing a threat to freedom and democracy and this time possibly, with a willing fifth column in its midst. Yet because of the pacifist mode that Europe is in now, it does virtually nothing except to criticise the US. But it is precisely this pacifism, whether in dealing with the threat to freedom or even the breakdown of law and order, that will see the re-emergence of fascist parties. If the threat is serious enough, they will succeed, with all the consequences that fascism entails. And once the horrors have been perpetrated, such as forced expulsions, genocide etc., Europeans will recoil from the violence and revert back to pacifism. After that is, the US/UK has liberated them from whatever brand of totalitarianism is the flavour in Europe. And the cycle will continue.

The possibilty of the re-emergence of fascist parties is by no means minimal, as recent events have shown. It is thus, far better if Europe joined the US in a war, which after all is in the defence of Western civilisation.

J.Shearer
UK

Marius,

Thanks for sticking with this. Perhaps this is wishful thinking on my part, but I believe that after being exposed to a number of strongly felt and well reasoned opinons, you are considering that perhaps we aren't just a swaggering imperialistic nation.

To those of you "educating" Marius, a little less stridency in your responses might be appropriate.

Let me help the visiting Europeans understand why you get so much anger from many Americans. It really started (this time) with Gerhard Schoder (sp?) who ran against the US in his closely fought campaign. Essentially he was willing to sacrifice our alliance for the sake of short term domestic politics. Then we hear in our press that Europe strongly opposes the war, and accuses the US of being irresponsible (we find this particularly annoying since a divided alliance makes it more rational for Saddam to assume that we are a paper tiger and that he can just continue to ignore the UN). Finally there is the steady drum beat of the blame America first movement that the majority of the press in in the U.S. likes to promote. We hear all of the above conveniently ignore reality, then we read someone going with the same line, and you get painted with the same brush.

Note to everyone else: this blog has mostly been about reasoned argument, and not name calling. Please also remember how much crap the Europeans read and hear from their news without getting cogent counter argument. Make a stand for rationality.

Hey, Phil...

The initial stridency seemed both proportional and well-deserved, given the tone of Marius' initial e-mail. As I noted a couple of posts back, he has since modulated his tone, and appears to be receiving like treatment.

Your point is well-taken, and I believe it is playing itself out.

> no nation in the history of the world has done more to advance and improve the condition of mankind than the United States of America

I don't think it's quibbling to argue this point, Solly, as the belief that we have emerged victorious from all of human history holds the seeds of decline, leading to the pernicious idea that we are somehow so special that we can never fail or fall. So, in the spirit of cowboy intellectualism:

EGYPT is the wellspring of many of our architectural and medical traditions.

GREECE gave us scientific taxonomy, high arts and architecture, western philosophy, and democracy.

ROME contributed highly sophisticated engineering techniques and urban planning, as well as key methods for both military and civil control.

RENAISSANCE ITALY brought arts and architecture to an apogee of beauty that may never be surpassed.

Finally, BRITAIN advanced political humanism and the literary canon, allowed the almost unfathomably profound insights of Newton and Darwin, innovated modern economic theory, and beyond the signal achievement of bringing us the industrial revolution has been an equal or greater contributor to many of the scientific advances Americans tend to think of as their own.

It is not difficult to assemble similar cases for the contributions of China, Persia, France, Germany, Russia or the Hau-de-no-sau-nee.

The USA has been the main wellspring of industrial standardization, information technology and the cinema arts. It is also perhaps the best example of a humanist political system on a large scale, but honestly it is too early to tell for certain: the country is still too young. Who with an ounce of sense would argue that landing a man on the moon was not one of the great achievements of all time? We have made many important contributions to medicine, agriculture, energy and other key fields. These are all wonderful things, but they do not put us head and shoulders above the other great nations of history. We still have much to prove, and must find ways to remain both vigorous and vigilant.

some good surveys:
- Technology in the Ancient World (Henry Hodges, 1970)
- Past Worlds Atlas of Archaeology (Harper Collins, 1988)
- The Story of Architecture From Antiquity to the Present (Konemann, 1996)
- Cities in Civilization (Peter Hall, 1998)

Yeah, but WE invented the Big Mac Cheeseburger AND the Hot dog.

THAT puts us head and shoulders above the rest. Heck, we invented Head & Shoulders too! ;-)

Orion

Chris...

With all due respect, I will stand by my statement:

"No nation in the history of the world has done more to advance and improve the condition of mankind than the United States of America."

While I don't believe that you were at all quibbling in any of the points you raised, I believe that you overlook several critical points worthy of discussion.

First, each and every specific "nation" you cite would be more accurately termed "empire". Egypt, Rome, Greece, Renaissance Italy, (Papal ventures, but the Vatican was the true seat of power), and England were all conquerors and colonizers. The United States has not gone to war in faraway lands to conquer and subjugate. Our soldiers have fought and died in faraway places to liberate, only to return home afterward. Each of the specific nations you cited had to be driven from their colonies, militarily or economically. I do not view this as a quibbling point.

You posit that: "the belief that we have emerged victorious from all of human history holds the seeds of decline, leading to the pernicious idea that we are somehow so special that we can never fail or fall."

The seeds of decline of which you speak would only germinate in an environment of complacency or assumed privilege. The belief that we HAVE emerged "victorious" from all of human history TO THIS POINT does not of itself lead to your supposition that a sense of infallibility is inevitable.

It is the very nature of our people, drawn from the entire world as we are, absent the ambition toward empire, that has and I believe will continue to stave off the slide to the "pernicious" sense of manifest destiny to which you allude.

While the gifts to mankind you cite for each extinct empire are certainly impressive, the intent behind each was largely for local consumption. The Egyptians' engineering was employed to build thanotopic tributes to their kings. The refinement of road construction by the Romans was fueled by the need to carry troops and to link the Empire. Greek "democracy" was largely a playground for the affluent and a far cry from how Americans would define it. Renaissance Italy did bring forth incomparable Art and architecture, restricted to the whims and generosity of either the Church or aristocratic patronage. England brought most of its gifts to the rest of the world at the point of a bayonet, the benefits often realized after they were expelled.

You also fail to note the condition of the "common man" under the auspices of these various empires. To do so tarnishes each considerably. Each held a disparity between the uppermost and lowermost that has never existed in the United States, even excluding the lot of those empires' conquered subjects.

And regarding the industrial revolution, no country more exemplifies industrialism more than the United States, whether it began here or not. (Would it have been nearly as momentous a period in world history WITHOUT the United States?)

Of COURSE, the United States did not INVENT everything. Of COURSE other nations, empires, and peoples throughout the world, throughout all of human history - recorded and otherwise, contributed to the advancement of mankind, intentionally or otherwise.

That was not at issue. I posited that no other nation had contributed as much to the advancement of mankind, and there is a preponderance of evidence to support that viewpoint.

Interchangeable parts, electric light, recorded sound, flight, space travel, penicillin, DNA, atomic energy, plastics, agricultural advances - the list is nearly endless.

Greek "democracy" vs. the representative Republic of the United States?

Newton vs. Hawking?

So many equivalencies or comparisons favoring the United States can be drawn. You concede that the United States has "been the main wellspring of industrial standardization, information technology and the cinema arts. It is also perhaps the best example of a humanist political system on a large scale", all of which is true, and represents only the tiniest sampling of this country’s accomplishments, even as I provided.

However, you add the qualifier: “but honestly it is too early to tell for certain: the country is still too young". You appear to view the youth of this nation as somehow disqualifying consideration of my thesis, but I would suggest that the very youth of the nation only bolsters my point.

You cite empires that persisted for long periods, during which their contributions to mankind were made. And yet, I remain unpersuaded that any ONE of these empires' contributions equal that of the United States in either the speed and magnitude of the advancement, or in the sheer number or rapidity with which they were brought forth. None advanced all as far as quickly in so short a time or in so many ways as this young nation has done.

Does the U.S. indeed stand "head and shoulders above the other great nations of history"? I believe that it does, and I believe that the point is more defendable than debatable.

Certainly the United States is a "mongrel" nation, woven together from the whole of the world, and so owes much to history and to the ingenuity of others. But in that this was the very notion of this nation's creation, it can hardly be used to disqualify the breathtaking achievements of its citizens, from its founding to this very day.

"We still have much to prove, and must find ways to remain both vigorous and vigilant."

Regardless of which side of the "debate" one might take, I think that this is a brilliant point, and one that ought to be taken to heart by all. Fortunately, I believe that this is an unspoken American ideal; that as a people we must always strive not only for ourselves, but for those that will follow.

As I read the words of those on this list, regardless of differing viewpoints on any specific issue, I do not find myself overly worried about "vigilance" in the United States.

Thank you for the discussion, Chris, offered "in the spirit of cowboy intellectualism" or not.

Solly,

While I agree with your sentiments I would like to point out that the US has had it's version of colonial ambitions to a small degree (nowhere near that of the real colonial powers). I offer the following as clarifications in the interests of accuracy - and to head off those liberal whiners who would no doubt bring them up -

Many of the nations we've 'liberated' were first 'held in trust' by the US as virtual colonies (Phillippines, Panama (and many other Central American nations), Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Guam, etc.) and often we've 'liberated' countries and simply installed puppet governments.

Fortunately, we've mostly learned from those mistakes - and in each case I'm aware of, we have done what we could to right those mistakes, leading to a truly independant nation that can stand tall.

Orion

Dear Orion:
Thank you for running a valuable bit of interference. I would add that many of these "protectorates", became states, would like to, or would welcome back the United States' voluntarily-discontinued presence.
Some of the "puppets" were indeed horrible, but others led to actual homegrown government. (Is a good "puppet", benevolently "controlled", worse than an independent tyrant, by the way?)
You are right; the U.S. HAS made mistakes, and unlike these long-gone empires, seeks to correct them. Note also that those former "virtual colonies" were not wholly abandoned once the U.S. left, and sources of revenue and commerce, (the Panama Canal comes to mind), were far more plentiful for the American presence and influence.
I very much like the term "held in trust", as it denotes a lack of permanence and also points to the eventual autonomy intended for those peoples. I believe that the fact that the U.S. was not driven out of these places by force, but rather of its own accord or respecting a referendum of the local populace, draws a very clear distinction between the United States and the various empires of history.
Thank you very much for rounding things out, and for saving a potential "nit" from the thorough "picking" that may well have otherwise occurred.

An interesting addition of yet another smoking gun to the US case against Iraq...Hussein's senior body guard has defected to Isreal with many details of where their hiding what -
http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,5921220%5E663,00.html

Orion

Solly,

Thank you for your response, which I will hold in esteem. Many of your arguments are sound. The USA is impressive, particularly when viewed among its contemporaries.

Certainly this nation has taken a diverse inheritance and moved it forward with great ingenuity and vigor. I agree that our diverse heritage is an incredible strength, although one shared to a notable extent by the other civilizations we have discussed. For instance, the history of Britain is one of absolutely riotous tribal clamor and international intrigue, often punctuated with thoughtful accord.

You and I appear to agree that technological and sociopolitical advance has been to the general mutual benefit of the citizens of each nation that has made those advances, and that the world has also benefited from real innovation and progress.

Much of the difference between our viewpoints appears to have to do with the intrinsic value we each place on past achievements. What of the challenges faced by an early Egypt, an ancient Greece, a Persia, in creating civilization from its raw tribal, agricultural and pre-urban material? The extent of their achievements given the conditions of their times are extraordinary. I think our nation will also be viewed by history as having brought the world to a higher plateau. If, somehow, we eventually exceed those accomplishments and grant humanity a lasting future of hope, then this would be by the grace of God. But it has not happened yet. Rising to primary global power is no small responsibility, and it is not yet clear what the implications are -- or even what philosophies will best guide us forward. Scientific advancement is accelerating, and we can only hope to keep our humanist advances on pace with the technological ones, while simultaneously tending to truths enshrined in our founding documents.

My personal belief is that we will eventually transfer the reins of power to an equally vital, vigorous and just international system. Others such as William Buckley argue that mutual sovereignty is the paragon of international political achievement. Presumably that position implies that we must strive to remain benevolent protectors of both our own constitution and freedoms, and of the illuminative light of human advancement. How far can such a truly progressive primary power withdraw from world affairs? In the end, to achieve the kind of greatness you describe, either our people must never tire or we must be able to teach others (be they national or transnational entities) to never tire. Would we be comfortable withdrawing from the world stage? Whether we desire to do that or not, it seems the true litmus test of our national greatness and security.

Thus far we are not the nation that "returns home". We are not all that different in that regard from empires of the past.

As the daily news explains, we have a very large military force in South Korea that is under heavy enemy artillery coverage. Power projection is a key element of our current success. Likewise, our greatest military failures have been instances where we failed to failed to securely achieve power projection capabilities. In an unstable world where the US is pre-eminent, we are likely to remain highly engaged overseas. The "Saudi question" hinges on power projection issues. What is our best mix of diplomacy and power projection in that region? Do not relations with China hinge, ultimately, on similar questions, but with the added element of China's own projection capabilities in the analytical mix? Projection capability is not the moral equivalent of colonisation, but to what extent is it a functional equivalent? Our current position clearly depends on an international strategy of heavy overseas deployments both potential and realized. We are already an empire of sorts. A relatively gentle one, I like to believe, thanks to the lessons of history that our founders had learned.

In realizing our position and moving forward, we must be both victors and scholars. Vigor and ingenuity must be matched with intelligence and wisdom. As long as we can agree to try to learn from history and be attuned to the truths around us, I am satisfied.

Its hilarious reading the crap the saviors of the world write(aka Americans). Americans are the most ignorant and arrogant people in the world. I am an Australian and hope that our country never becomes anything like the U.S. I dont know where Americans get all their pride from.It must be great living in a country with one of the highest crime rates in the world. I guess all the shootings and violence that occur in your country are nescessary though, because as most of you have said killing is a good way to deal with the problem of killers. I say lets all buy guns, become cowboys, bomb anyone that has a difference to our way of thinking then sit around and sing the most hypocritical song known to man, the star spangled banner. Believe it or not but most people outside the so called land of freedom think of americans as being absolute wankers. George dubya and all you gullable yankee cowboys can stick your nuke'm ideas up your arse(ass).
He's some advise for your country. Make Michael Moore your president.

I'd like to point out that I've played rugby with a lot of Aussies and not ONE of them talks like Andrew in the above post, nor have any of them - to my knowledge - held any of his views.

Not sure if he's even an Aussie or just an American Liberal trying to make it appear that there are ignorant cowards in other lands.

Orion

(quote)Not sure if he's even an Aussie or just an American Liberal trying to make it appear that there are ignorant cowards in other lands.(/quote)

I believe the term is "owned".

Interesting.

Orion. Your argument that we should act as one is very valid. Many people feel the USA have broken unity by deciding to go to war on their own (well, with the UK and some other minor players). I think the UN will eventually and inevitably reach the same conclusion (unless, indeed, Saddam does what he is told to do). And then we can act in unity. To me, this seems a good idea.

Furthermore, many people hold the same views as Andrew. You can call those people ignorant cowards and be done with it, but I wonder why they hold these views. Perhaps there is a point to be taken.

Well, Andrew used the word wanker which lends his claim to being Australian some authenticity. However, I've never met one like him and living in London you couldn't throw a brick without hitting a dozen Aussies.

Marius, there are many people that hold the same view as Andrew, I meet them all the time, they tend to spout the same clichéd soundbites, Bush is Stupid, Americans are power hungry, they want to kill those who disagree with them. Perhaps Andrew and his ilk should take a moment to consider the actions of the United States over the last decade, with particular reference to their actions since 9/11. They haven't gone alone, they have shown what I consider to be endless patience with the UN as it pushes itself toward the brink of collapse, they have followed the rule of law and welcomed and rationally argued with dissenting opinion.

I am ashamed to say that until recent events I was as guilty of reflective Anti Americanism as many are in Europe, a kind of snide humour rather than aggressive abuse but it was there all the same. Americans may be blunt, sometimes this grates, however I can recognise integrity, and I appreciate courage, of action and of purpose. Since the events of 2001 America has shown all of these in spades, in the face of extraordinary antagonism they have maintained their composure and rationality. Much more so than the hysterical sounding anti-war protestors.

Saddam Hussein is an inhuman dictator who has flaunted international law for 12 years, Carlee wonderfully documented the transgressions above. What has the UN done? The first word of each new resolution condemns the inaction that followed the previous resolution. This cannot be enough.

The European experiment has shown itself wilfully unable to support it's rhetoric even when the atrocities were happening in Europe itself.

There is a time and a place for discussion and negotiation that time is passed.

You could pick a better 'Australian' out of Tim Blair's bowel movements...

Marius,

I agree that 'eventualy' the UN will act - but that time will be too late. The US has played by the rules, we've waited, we've allowed many different 'last chances' to pass for Iraq.

We've told the UN that this is THEIR last chance to follow through on their statements. Either live up to your words, or we'll do it with those who see. (And I'm not sure I'd consider Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, the Czech Republic et. al. 'minor players') Since more and more nations are signing on with the US I believe we ARE acting 'as one'. Exactly as when at a mugging or rape there are always those who act - and chase down the criminal, and there are the many more who simply stand and watch. Those who act are the 'one'. Those who watch are just an audience, forever doomed to standing on the sidelines and being irrelevant to events.

In essence, the UN is lying. They've said 'last chance' several times - but never followed up. By doing so, they are simply CONTRIBUTING to war. Every other dictator who hears 'last chance' from the UN now knows that he's got about a dozen before that body decides to act. This is NOT contributing to world peace.

I responded somewhat harshly to Andrew's note due to his tone and my belief that he is masquerading as an Australian. Had he posted something containing fact, logic, or reason rather than a strictly emotive appeal, I would've responded in kind.

Orion

Hello again, Chris, and thank you for your reply!

I agree that there are many points upon which we appear to be in agreement, and so I will address only points where is appears we differ, (perhaps only semantically, in some instances).

First, I want to make clear that I do not discount at either the magnitude or the lasting value or benefit of the empires you cite. Neither do I discount at all the "starting point" from which they began. Their achievements are, as you quite rightly noted, nothing less than extraordinary.

I also agree that the United States will be held in considerable esteem in the hindsight of history, though I believe we will endure as a nation longer than any of these fallen empires, due in no small part to the investment each individual has in this country's future.

I am so very, very glad that you have voiced the appropriate and all-too-rare deference to the role that God's Grace plays in our country's success, past, present, and future. Few seem to recall this vital factor in our P.C.-hampered world. And yet this is the key to avoiding the hubris you correctly cited as being essential to an eventual downfall. By recognizing that there are things bigger than ourselves, we maintain the proper perspective, and carry that awareness into our own dealings in the world. It is refreshing to have a President in office that recognizes this, as exemplified in his words of comfort Saturday, and by his stated view that foreign policy must contain an element of humility. These are guardrails against the slide you described and warned against.

"If, somehow, we eventually exceed those accomplishments and grant humanity a lasting future of hope, then this would be by the grace of God. But it has not happened yet."

The medical and agricultural advances brought forth from the United States alone already grant the world more time, literally granting a greater future and hope than would otherwise be realized. As the empires you cited carved out civilization from wilderness, so has the freedom of this nation has allowed life itself to persist and thrive where it otherwise would not. In addition to medicine and agriculture, there is the effect that our interventions and victories have had in the restoration, maintenance or creation of freedom as well as the sheer salvation of individual lives, makes the possibility, (I believe probability), that we will continue to elevate mankind even further.

"Rising to primary global power is no small responsibility, and it is not yet clear what the implications are -- or even what philosophies will best guide us forward."

Although we have endured brief periods where this nation's leadership seemed to take that responsibility lightly, the overall scope of our actions imply rather clearly that our intentions are to assist in bringing gifts descended from God - freedom and self-determination among them - to all that yearn for them, but find them unrealized. These yearnings reside at the very core of the Human spirit, and having codified them into our founding documents, they have become universal in the fabric of this nation. Whatever the "noise" of current philosophical or political wrangling home or abroad, that is the essential philosophy that will guide this nation forward. Perhaps it is the very fact that we take these things somewhat for granted that makes it difficult for us to understand others' animus toward us, or to even see their perspective.

But the fact that these ideals ARE so deeply ingrained into our national psyche also drive us forward, regardless of failures or opposition, in seeking to persuade all to this viewpoint. Thus far, all that have ascribed to these ideals and fostered them politically have succeeded, and will