Who Profits from War?

Well, the american economy is the biggest and most powerful and dominating economy in the world. They are allready controlling the world in a way because the rest of world is dependent on the american economy. There's really no need to "enslave" the rest of the world and it would be too expensive. The costs of men and money when colonizing every country that has something that USA wants would be astronomic. Just take a look on what the war against Iraq costed.

Furthermore, deep inside do you really think that the war against Iraq is the first step in a new era of american colonisation?? Wouldn't that era be here allready if that conspiracy theory was accurate? I mean, ever since the end of WWII America has gone to war or carried out some kind of invasion at least once every decade. And they still haven't enslaved the world. What is different about this time?

One can have opinions on the fact that USA has troops in numerous countries all over the world because of their status as the only super power. But to call it imperialism is far too drastic. Imperialism is about gaining new territory and wealth. What America is doing is trying to protect themselves from what they are afraid of and, yes, trying to get something back financially while doing it. This, you can, and should, criticize but to call it imperialism is not entirely correct, if you ask me.

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

"What is different about this time?" 9/11, that's what. Is that enough to tip the balance? To push the US towards an outright policy of colonialist imperialism? The cost of colonialism/imperialism may be exorbitant, but, at the same time, the possibilities of making a huge profit are also right out there. It is the same as in any business enterprise--there is a cost, and also a profit to be made. Both the Romans and the British profited tremendously from their imperialistic practices. It wouldn't make sense to be an imperialist unless it was a profit-making venture, would it?

I never said the US needs to wage war on all of those countries, I said those terror-states need to be dealt with. Whether through direct armed conflict, special ops, or economic coercion, the political infrastructures of those countries need to be changed.

Just for clarification: I'd be making the same arguments even if 9/11 didn't happen.

Why is it that it's the left who wishes to leave the brutal dictatorships and terror-regimes alone? Orwell must be spinning in his grave. I don't think that you like murderous, bloodthirsty dictators, Django - but you never miss an opportunity to oppose their removal. The left has been reduced to the defenders of the status quo and the prime forces of reaction...all too eager to toe the party line. If this, ladies and gentlemen, fellow progressives, isn't cause for grief, then what is? I'm proud to be a leftist, and ashamed to be grouped with the frightened doves hiding their heads, terrified of the real world.

Oh well, it doesn't really matter what you say now, because you've failed at every turn to prove your assertions.

My point is that the Holocaust provided the final justification for those who had opposed the war in the first place. Much in the same way, the torture chambers and mass graves which are being unearthed daily by relief workers around Baghdad should eliminate all doubt. Instead, those who opposed the war originally are sticking to the weapons thing, as if the charred corpses mean nothing if they can't be used against Bush.

You're right, there is a double standard. I've written about it here and elsewhere on the web. The US continues to placate the Turks and Israelis, both of which have horrid human rights records, yet poses as the great defender of democracy. Um, not exactly. Still, does this diminish the triumph of Saddam's removal? I will never tire of opposing and attacking the fascists or the religious zealots - if the Bush administration wishes to attack them, I will support that fight with everything I have.

__________________
**** the Lakers!

Okay, first of all, I'm not a "leftist"--I'm an INDEPENDENT! I believe in freedom and independence at every level! Secondly, I'm not opposing the removal of a murderous, bloodthirsty dictator. I'M OPPOSING THE ARBITRARY INVASION OF SOVEREIGN NATIONS ON FICTITIOUS GROUNDS. This practice strikes me as being similar to colonialist/imperialist practices of colonialistic and imperialistic nations in the past. I'm just speaking my conscience here. I am, in no way, a "frightened dove hiding my head, terrified of the real world". I am a courageous dove with my head in the air and completely unafraid of the real world. And I'm a happy dove too!

I thought you were going to leave.
What happened to you leaving?

__________________
"We are all worms, but I do believe I am a glow-worm."
--Winston Churchill

That's ancient history now, Herod! Times have changed!

Well, what about Pearl Harbor and WWII? Are Japan or Germany US colonies? As I have explained before (and I am starting to understand why people here are so frustrated with you) is that the events that has followed the 9-11 attack have the nature of isolationism - not imperiaism. But just scroll up and read what I've written about it in previous posts. No need to repeat myself here.

The romans and the british conquered. They killed all resistance and didn't care about democracy or feeding the people they enslaved. That saves money. And if you compare those armies with the american army, they were built basically on men - not the sophisticated high tech weapons and equipment the US army is built on. Men are cheaper than bombs that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a piece. And frankly, do you really think the american people will accept that their army colonize country after country? Don't you think they understand that terrorist attacks would be a part of their everyday life, just like in Israel? Not to mention the moral side of things.

Well of course. Absolutely.

Who better than America to decide the fate of the rest of the world? They've all proven their stupididty and their inability to care for themselves. American colonization would be a gift to whichever country would be deemed worthy. Spread the love, says I.

Pidzilla, I see your point about the aftermath of Pearl Harbor and the analogy with Japan and Germany. Good point. There are differences between Pearl Harbor and 9/11, though, and my concern is: are those differences sufficient to tip the balance in favor of outright colonialism, as opposed to mere isolationism? Here is the summary of the differences:

1) During WWII, the US was not involved in a unilateral invasion of the invading power. Rather, the US became involved in an already ongoing war, which it had attempted, thus far, to stay out of. The Japanese invasion was a part of an ongoing war in Eurasia, which brought the US into the ball game. The US then joined the Allied forces to stem the tide of Eurasian fascist imperialism. On the other hand, 9/11 was a unilateral terrorist attack carried out by a terrorist organization of religious zealots or fanatics, not an invasion by a nation. Furthermore, The US military response to 9/11 has been unilateral and, far from an international coalition of allies, the US has been targeted with international criticism, which it has chosen to ignore.

2) The casualties suffered as a result of 9/11 have scarred the American psyche far more deeply than those of Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor was a naval base in Hawaii--the casualties were military casualties and the site of the attack was relatively far removed. 9/11 took place in the US heartland, so to speak--Manhattan island, NYC. The casualties were civilian and far outnumbered those of Pearl Harbor. Naturally, this would result in a much greater psychological impact on the population of the USA--enough of an impact to alter the popular mindset in favor of a policy of colonialist imperialism? That remains to be seen. (I take the risk of sounding unsympathetic here--I'm just trying to be objective and I apologize to readers who might feel offended by my words).

3) To make a strict analogy with the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, the US should have restricted their military reprisal to Afghanistan--the only nation with a direct, proven connection with Al Quaeda. I completely supported the US invasion of Afghanistan and the toppling of the Taliban regime--partly because it was completely justified and partly because my own country of origin, India, benefited tremendously from the removal of the Afghan terrorist base, as India has suffered tremendously from Al Quaeda terrorism as well. What I OBJECT to, though, is an ongoing military campaign, with no end in sight, against the so-called "Axis of Evil"--a fictitious conspiracy of nations who have allegedly been linked with 9/11. This is an obvious fabrication on the part of the US administration to justify an ongoing international war that stands to be enormously profitable to certain concerned parties, most esp. the arms industry, the Bechtel group, the oil industry, and others who would benefit from such a policy of semi-colonialism. It's one thing to destroy the terrorist set-up directly responsible for 9/11 (which I totally support) and another thing to begin this ongoing policy of militarism against pretty much anyone one happens to disagree with. That strikes me as approaching colonialism and imperialism. Iraq is the first nation to have been attacked under this new policy of "aggressive isolationism", which looks, to me, a lot like colonialist imperialism. Who's next in line? Remains to be seen.

Finally, a point related to your points regarding the British and the Romans. Firstly, neither the British nor the Romans exterminated the population they conquered. Rather, they enslaved them by a process that they considered to be "civilizing the barbarians". They eradicated the culture of the enslaved nations and introduced their own culture and institutions into the conquered societies, remodelling them in their own image, so to speak. This definitely has its merits, but it is the essence of imperialism. They also harnessed the human resources of the conquered nations to feed their own imperialist machinery. That's one of the reasons they were able to keep the machinery going and keep it profitable. And another thing, both the Romans and the British were able to achieve a decisive military edge thanks, primarily, to technology. Their technology might not have been as advanced as ours, but it was technology that made their armies invincible. The Romans had their catapults, battering rams, etc., while the British had the Industrial Revolution--steam trains, sophisticated weaponry (for the time), etc. Moreover, the German Nazi war machine, which was, again, imperialist in nature because it was about the brutal conquest of sovereign nations, was even more explicitly centered around technology, most especially the Panzers or tanks, aircraft and the V2 missile technology (which didn't quite get off the ground, from what I understand). Thus imperialism and colonialism is definitely strongly connected with technology, which gives a nation a military edge. The Soviets, too, were primarily driven by their technological prowess, though they had a territorial advantage and superior numbers. However, the ultimate failure of the Soviet Empire was primarily linked to a failure in their technology, which was connected with economic failure. The Chernobyl disaster, which preceded the collapse of the Soviet system, is a clear example of the failure of Soviet technology.

As to whether Americans will realize that a colonialist policy will result in an increase of terrorism--maybe they figure that colonialist imperialism will increase their control over potential terrorist nations and, thereby, reduce the possibility of terrorism. Whether or not this is true, I don't know. But it does boil down to an ethical and diplomatic issue. My concern is--where do you draw the line. The US is certainly justified in invading and siezing control of a nation that poses an imminent threat to their security. My concern is: what constitutes such an imminent threat? The Bush administration argued that Iraq posed such an imminent threat owing to weapons of mass destruction. Critics argued that even if Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, it did not pose an imminent threat to US security. And, thus far, the Bush administration has yet to prove that Saddam Hussein's regime possessed any weapons of mass destruction at all. Again, if Bush can convincingly prove that his invasion of Iraq was justified because Iraq posed a significant imminent threat to US security and interests, I would support his action against Iraq. The mere toppling of a brutal dictator is not sufficient grounds to intervene in the affairs of a sovereign nation, because that amounts to a colonialist, as opposed to isolationist, agenda.

Again--if Iraq DID pose a significant imminent threat to US security and interests, and can be proven to have done so, the invasion of Iraq is justified. If NOT, then it amounts to colonialism, pure and simple. Maybe not explicitly so, but colonialism nonetheless. That's my point, in summation.

Assuming that you are being serious here, Toose, I'm not sure the rest of the world would be quite so eager to agree with your "progressive" ideas!

Only a moron who knows absolutely nothing about the feelings of the American public following Pearl Harbor could make a statement like this…

__________________

All of this is true, except the military action in Iraq was far from unilateral. A large coalition of countries supported that action, not least the leaders of democratic Kurdistan, who have deserved US support in their fight against Saddam for the past 20 years. It's also interesting to note that Israel opposed the action, as did Turkey (until they recieved that insane amount of money to use the bases in the north) and Saudi Arabia - proof that if there's one thing the core terrorist countries can agree on, it's that fighting for democracy is an awful idea.

The very nature of what the US is fighting for in these terror states contradicts the idea of imperial force and colonial domination. Django, the question before the house is this: do you think that fascism is worth fighting against?

Based on your arguments, you think it's just fine as long as it doesn't pose a direct threat to you. You are perfectly entitled to believe that, but it certainly isn't the most honorable of positions to take.

Also, 'aggressive isolationism' is a contradiction in terms. And the Bush administration has been anything but isolationist in its policies since 9/11. Instead, it has established a core group of democratic countries intent on ridding the world of fascist elements - an achievement of great honor and respectability.

I don't think it's colonialist or isolationist. How about internationalist? Do you honestly think Iraq, and the world, is worse off now than when Saddam was in power?

Also, you can look up the meetings between Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda operatives that happened throughout the 1990s and into the summer leading up to 9/11. There isn't a clear link, but the fact that they were together in the first place is cause for alarm.

No matter that millions of Kurds and Shi'a Muslims were slaughtered by a genocidal maniac, and no matter that the only way the Iraqis could recieve the medicines and food they needed was by removing that maniac. Nope - that doesn't directly concern the United States, so let them work it out for themselves.

"To sin by silence when we should protest makes cowards out of men." -Elia Wheeler Wilcox

You are also using examples from history, but ignoring how this particular action is going to be viewed in that larger context. The bottom line is, Saddam was removed and the Iraqis will choose their own leadership. It doesn't matter which company profits from this.

Well, Caitlyn, I admit that this statement would sound heartless to someone directly and personally affected by 9/11, and, probably, by Pearl Harbor too, but I am trying to make an objective statement about facts, not trying to get involved in the emotional issues inevitably related to them. Yes, it seems unsympathetic, which is why I apologized beforehand. However, it seems to me, for the reasons cited above, to be an accurate statement. Sorry if you disagree.

Well, if it wasn't unilateral in actual fact, it was unilateral for all intents and purposes, because most of the significant international voices in the world, including, might I add, those of Kofi Anan, UN Secretary General; Nelson Mandela, former South African Premier, and Bishop Desmond Tutu, voiced their objection to the US action. And for good reason, in my opinion. Furthermore, as you noted, Israel, America's no. 1 ally in the middle-east and, arguably, in the world, opposed the invasion too. What does that tell you? One of the primary reasons used by the US to rationalize their actions was that Israel would benefit from the removal of Saddam. Yet, Israel, under Sharon's right-wing regime, opposed the US action! Was the US invasion of Iraq really about fighting for democracy? Or was it a case of right-wing opportunism with a profit-motive primarily in mind? In essence, colonialism.

Who says that this is a fight against fascism? Fascism isn't even remotely involved in any of this. Firstly, Al Quaeda was far from fascist--they were/are a RELIGIOUS organization of fanatical militant zealots using terrorism to achieve their objectives. Nationalist they may be, but not fascist. Secondly, all imperialists and colonialists claim to be fighting for noble objectives to justify their policies. The Romans claimed to be civilizing the world by spreading their Latin language and culture through imperialism. The British claimed to be fighting heathen cultures and acting to preserve and spread European Christian civilization. It's essentially the same thing here--George W. Bush believes in agressively civilizing the world in the American model, but is he, in the process, undermining the very causes that the US stands for in his own nation? During WWII, the Allies did not invade Germany and Italy because they turned into fascist nations. If they had, they would have been treading the same dangerous ground that the US currently is--are they justified in intervening in the domestic affairs of sovereign nations through direct military intervention, or, for that matter, by any other means, simply because they happen to disagree with the form of government or society of that nation, when it happens to pose no direct threat to their own security or interests? That amounts to colonialism or imperialism in my book. The Spanish Civil War, on the other hand, is an example of an idealistic war against fascism, but it involved an international brigade of volunteers. Perhaps, in that case, international aid was warranted. But when one begins to intervene into the domestic affairs of sovereign nations on strictly ideological grounds, when they pose on direct threat to one's own security or interests, one steps into some diplomatically and ethically dangerous territory. At what point does it approach colonialism or imperialism? Is it about liberation or control?

It isn't an issue about honor so much as about the practical implications of such actions, and about respecting the sovereignty of independent nations.

Well, if Bush's policy is isolationist, then "aggressive isolationism" is hardly a misnomer, because his policy is certainly aggressive. Again, the "Axis of Evil" has nothing to do with fascism--it has to do with Islam and supposed terrorist connections which are yet to be adequately proven. E.g. in the case of Iraq, the connections with terrorist elements are flimsy and unconvincing, being largely circumstantial, in my opinion, and the weapons of mass destruction are yet to be revealed, if, at all, they exist.

How about "New World Order"? The issue is not whether the world is better off now--it is whether Bush's action was justified and whether it amounts to a colonialist/imperialist action that disregards the sovereignty of independent nations.

Purely circumstantial.

No, that isn't the issue, for the reasons outlined above.

I'll be back after work around 11 to handle this.

Until then, I'd like to clarify my use of the term 'fascism':

fas·cism (fshzm)
n.
often Fascism
1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
3. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

The phrases in bold are what I was leaning toward. If those don't apply to the al Qaeda network, bin Ladenism, or Hezbollah & Hamas, (not to mention Israel) then what does?

You're missing my point. Both Japan and Germany (I believe) were governed by americans after WWII. They are not anymore.

You are being highly speculative since you don't have the slightest idea about what scarred the american psyche the most - Pearl Harbor or 9-11. The fact that USA still bears scars from Pearl Harbor over 60 years after it happened should tell you something. Just like USA bears scars from Vietnam and that was "only" soldiers dying too.

And, no, I don't think "the psychological impact" is enough to alter the popular mindset in favor of a policy of colonialist imperialism. Now, when it looks like the Bush administration was up to no good with "the evidence", a big part of the american people says "WHAT THE ****???". Nobody likes to be tricked, even if it is for "their own best".

You are mixing things up. The Axis of Evil isn't entirely about 9-11. The "members" of The Axis of Evil: Iraq, Iran and North Korea, are nations that, for various reasons, are considered enemies of USA. Iraq because of Saddam, Iran because of fundamentalist islam, and North Korea because of stalinism with a twist of nuclear weapons. 9-11 resulted in USA deciding to take care of potential aggressors before they had done anything. This is basically wrong but I am prepared to look the other way when it leads to better lives for citizens in dictatorships. But it is not colonialism.

What I oppose to is the way America handled this whole thing and the way they are handling some things now. But basically I was for the removal of Saddam.

You are talking about a complete different thing that I am. I have never said that the romans and british exterminated entire populations. I said that they killed all resistance. And I have never said that the roman and british empires wasn't technologically superior to the cultures they conquered - that's why they succeeded in conquering them. What I said was that the british and especially the roman armies relied on manpower backed up with sophisticated technology. The american army of today, on the other hand, can send an unmanned aeroplane to the enemy and destroy him without losing one single soldier - but spending a lot of money at the same time.

You are referring to the german army as comparable to the armies of ancient Rome and imperialistic Britain, which is also misleading. One of the reasons to why so many people died in WWII and even more so in WWI was that warfare technology had evolved so dramatically since the industrialisation. But war was still fought "in the old way", basing your attack on massive manpower - men that were being killed within seconds by the modern and enormously devestating bombs and grenades.

No, I don't agree. I still think it's out of isolationistic reasons rather than colonialistic. I agree that the Bush administration has a lot of things to clear out for the american public and the rest of the world too. But this talk about colonialism is a bit exaggerated, I think.

Would USA attack Canada just because Saudi Arabia told you to? Would USA attack Mexico, even if you knew it meant uprising among all hispanics all over USA, just because Turkey told you to? Would USA attack Cuba, even if it meant risking that the entire Latin America would attack USA, just because Israel told you to?

The coalition of countries fighting in Iraq wasn't formed because of the desire to fight for democracy. It was an american, not an international, invention and the countries joining up did so primarily probably because they thought it would be a good thing in the longrun to be on America's side.

Bush based a lot of his presidential campaign on promises of a more isolationist policy: less involvement abroad on all levels; enviromental, economic, military, you name it... And he is still an isolationist. I don't think he is very interested in cooperating with other countries on things not concerning, when it comes down to it, national security.

But, yes, the entire world might gain something from getting rid of Saddam, and if not the entire world then at least the iraqi people.

I don't know where you look up that kind of things but I think that one might find some alarming things concerning american intelligence and its connections to various fishy organistations as well. Not to mention Dick Cheney's Halliburton's business with Iraq in the 1990's in spite of the sanctions. These are things that make me want to vomit when I hear Bush and other people talking about the glorious fight for democracy and the freedom of the iraqi people.

Let's just hope you are right.

See? They're all too stupid then!





I WAS NOT BEING ENTIRELY SERIOUS, OF COURSE. I WAS POINTING OUT THAT THE IDEA OF US COLONIZATION IS A PRETTY LUDICROUS ONE. WHAT WOULD WE HAVE TO GAIN FROM IT? BE CAREFUL, THERE WILL BE A TEST.

My point concerning Israel and Turkey is that they shouldn't be allies. How about some regime change there?

The US can rationalize the action in any way they choose. It doesn't matter. Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. The world is a better place because of it.

If it were a case of opportunism, then why no France? Why no Russia or China? Maybe because, in spite of the fact that their economies are in the dumps, the removal of Saddam would have lessened the money flow from Iraq rather than increased it.

I addressed this in the above post.

If removing a dictatorship/theocracy and replacing it with democracy amounts to colonialism, then bring it on.

Personally, I detect a disgusting strain of colonialism in Israeli policies - all the more reason they should be cut off from US support, and Sharon exposed for the monster he is. The dismantling of the Hussein regime is hardly similar to the oppression of an entire people.

So no one has a responsibility to anyone else? By this rationale, Hitler's Germany would have been fine had he not extended his rule, Milosevic's reign of terror would still be going on today, and South Africa's apartheid system would remain unscathed.

When governments like this exist, World Wars begin. When they are removed, there's an uproar among those who insist upon being optimistic - "oh, it won't happen again. Not to this country." It's been proven time and time again that allowing these governments to do as they wish results in even wider terror and further suffering.

You've refuted me a number of times when I've said you're afraid to look at things the way they are. But what you are basically arguing is that you shouldn't have to worry about other nations as long as the one you live in is secure. I don't think I'm alone in wanting to be a citizen of the world, rather than just one country.

So it doesn't matter to you if millions die, as long as they are in some third world country which poses no direct threat to your home? Hmm. Call up Pat Buchanan and Reverend Falwell and Pat Robertson and Kissinger - they're just your type.

If you really want to get technical, Saddam Hussein's regime violated a number of UN resolutions, he carried out the systematic extermination of the Kurds and Shi'a Muslims, and invaded a democratic country for no reason in 1990. The UN should have removed him years ago. These are not ideological reasons, they are perfectly factual. Look it up.

If a leader is murdering people in his country and I disagree with it, is that ideological opposition, or is it moral opposition? To say that it's ideological is to avoid confronting what actually happens - yet again, you evade the issues at the core of the problem, i.e., bury your head in the sand.

I have no respect for the Hussein regime or others like it, and, by proxy, I have no respect for anyone who defends that type of government.

I already posted the definition of fascism I was using - perfectly applicable in the case of nearly every country I mentioned, as well as Hamas, Hezbollah, and al Qaeda.

If the world is better off now, Bush's action was justified. You seem to insist on taking the administration on its own terms, rather than actually thinking for yourself about what Saddam's removal means.

On to Pidd:

I don't see what point you're making.

But the fact remains: these countries are opposing a fascist dictator in favor of democracy. Whether directly or indirectly, they are fighting an evil concept and should be applauded.

I remember rolling my eyes at his speeches against 'nation-building'. But you can't deny that there's been a distinct policy shift on his administration's behalf in all things abroad - the continuing terror around the globe in the aftermath of 9/11 now directly concerns the American people, whereas it had previously been shrugged off.

I'm sure there are plenty of fishy things going on with the CIA and american business in the middle east. And you're right - Bush hasn't given the public any reason, other than what we already know, to support the invasion. Regardless, the fact that it happened is a great thing which will benefit the Iraqis and Kurds. I don't care if he wanted to invade because Saddam's son beat him at golf, I'm just happy that the Iraqis will be freed of the decades of torture and terror.

Don't blame me, I voted for Bush Sr.

Your definition would apply equally to Soviet Russia under Stalin--and yet, that wasn't a fascist state at all--it was a Communist state. Something tells me that your definition might leave something to be desired. Your definition is too broad--it is a definition of tyranny or dictatorship in general, not necessarily fascism. Fascism is a certain brand of tyranny or dictatorship--it applies to a specific political movement in the '30's and '40's in Europe, which gave rise to the Nazis and Hitler in Germany, Mussolini in Italy, Franco in Spain, etc. It also includes Japanese imperialism under Hirohito. And, of course, it applies to fringe movements subsequently which sprung out of these movements. One of the fundamental characteristics of fascist ideology is the concept of racial supremacy and racism. I don't deny that there are a lot of tyrants all over the world, but not all of them are fascists. And not all fascists are, necessarily, (tyrannical) rulers of nations. To be more specific, fascism is a certain brand of "nationalism," as described by George Orwell, in his essay, Notes on Nationalism. Saddam Hussein might have been a brutal, psychotic dictator, but I wouldn't call even him a fascist.

Again, the difference in circumstances in the two cases is the primary issue in my mind here.

I hope you're right. Considering that the US still bears scars from Pearl Harbor and Vietnam, when the casualties were only military, how much more personally would they take 9/11, when casualties were far greater and civilian, for the most part? The difference here is that 9/11 was really a freak attack by a group of fanatics who succeeded in setting off a catastrophic sequence of events that resulted in a huge number of casualties. It wasn't a concerted military attack by a foreign power, like Pearl Harbor. The idea wasn't conquest--it was terrorism--desperate people resorting to desperate (suicidal) tactics in order to wreak havoc and cause damage. From what I can make out, the US administration has been misinterpreting this attack to have derived from some form of international organization or conspiracy of nations intent on destroying the American way of life--the so-called "Axis of Evil". While I don't deny that there are anti-American sentiments out there and anti-American nations, I do not believe that such a conspiracy or organization of nations really exists. I believe that the "Axis of Evil" is a fiction--a creation of the Bush administration which concocts, in people's minds, the idea of an international conspiratorial organization of anti-American nations intent on the destruction of America. This only feeds paranoia in America and serves to justify an ongoing campaign of military aggression against the so-called enemies of America. I have grave doubts about the validity of this course of action. I think it's safe to say that 9/11 has put America on the defensive. My point is that the American response to 9/11 is unpredictable and one really doesn't know what direction it will take. I only hope that, ultimately, reason prevails and that people can sort out their differences without resorting to further hostilities and aggression. As far as retribution goes, I think more than enough blood has been shed on both sides.

Well, the use of the word "Axis" to group together all the nations that are hostile to America is misleading, because it harkens back to the WWII era and the Axis powers, which were a definite conspiracy/organisation of fascist/imperialist nations. It makes people think that they are up against a similar threat--fascism and imperialism, when the reality is very different. The reality is that 9/11 was caused by a terrorist group based in a backward Islamic nation in Asia, a nation that has already been completely conquered by the US military and a terrorist network that has been dismantled, for the most part, with all the top brass on the run, captured or killed. To then group together all other nations who might not be on friendly terms with the US and claim that they constitute an "Axis of Evil"--an international conspiratorial organization that threatens the American Way of Life--a threat epitomized by 9/11--is completely misleading, because it constitutes an Orwellian justification for an ongoing war against anyone and everyone that America happens to disagree with. The average man on the street is not in a position to understand these political niceties--people only hear the sound-bites, like "Axis of Evil" and "9/11" and "fascism" and jump on the band-wagon to war. This is what happened with Iraq--no clear basis for invasion, but invasion nonetheless. How many times will it have to recur before people wise up to the reality of the situation?

Well, the more technology advances, the more devastating war inevitably will be. The more advanced weapons become, the more efficiently they are able to kill. The atomic weapons that ended WWII did so by destroying human life on an unprecedented scale, the mere shock of which induced the Japs to surrender. The weapons of mass destruction available today make those atomic bombs look like firecrackers by comparison (as pretty much anyone knows)--only the casualties, this time, are civilian as much as military. With conventional warfare, as in WWI, casualties were primarily military. With modern nuclear warfare, the casualties are just as likely to be civilian. The first war in which civilians were explicitly targeted was the Spanish Civil War. During WWII, bombing raids targeted civilian centers just as much as military centers. Today, all it requires is the heads of a few nations to press a few buttons to pretty much annihilate all life on earth.

Isolationism and colonialism--where do you draw the line? Bush's attack on Iraq was described as a preemptive attack designed to quell a supposed threat posed by Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The very concept of a preemptive attack of self-defense is a contradiction in terms, as preemption implies aggression--how is it different, essentially, from the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor? I would argue that if you study the mindset of the Japanese when they attacked Pearl Harbor, it was probably not very different from the American mindset when they attacked Iraq. Perhaps the Japs perceived America as being a potential threat, and they sought to launch a preemptive attack on America in order to feel more secure themselves, just as America's preemptive attack on Iraq was designed to make Americans feel more secure and at ease. In many ways, it's like a showdown in the Old West--a question of who pulls the trigger first. Only, this time, with nuclear weapons at stake, which makes it a very scary scenario.