catapult magazine

Much of the Iraq war commentary lately has centered on the ?unsportsmanlike? way that the Iraqis are running their side of the conflict. The locals are not in uniform; they ambush the American and British troops; they make sneak attacks, and then they run away. They conscript other local people to fight on their side. They even take their anger out on their neighbors who do not want to resist the Coalition forces.
This sounds a lot like the rebels in the American Revolution. The British were incensed that the American rabble dressed like farmers; shot from behind trees, rather than standing up in rows to fight ?like civilized men;? made sneak attacks, and ambushed the stodgy British when they least expected an attack. The rebels did not allow their fellow citizens to be loyal to the British. Those who tried were forced to fight with the rebels because the alternative was to have your neighbors burn your house, seize your property, tar and feather you, and occasionally shoot or hang you.
So, why is it all right for American patriots to ignore all the ?rules of war? when defending their country (which, by the way, wasn?t ?their? country; they were lawless rebels), but those evil doers in Iraq can?t defend their country from invaders in the same fashion? And, by the way, isn?t it pretty hypocritical to have any ?rules for war?? Presumably this is not just some game.

Certainly a big thanks ought to go out to our troops for protecting the opportunities we have to protest this war.

Dan, I’m trying so hard to engage your argument over and over again (the one about how this U.S. action necessarily means that anyone in the world can invade another country), but I obviously haven’t been clear enough so far. Why must you think that if the U.S. invades Iraq, it’s going to turn on Canada next? This is not the next logical step. As I said once or twice before, the Bush administration has clearly outlined its reasons for engagement, reasons some nations in the U.N. refused to accept. The question at hand for all nations of the world should be how to combat a possible threat in a post-9-11 world. Bush is arguing (with his actions) that preventative action has become necessary. If this is the new reality of world politics, the U.N. ought to be working its tail off trying to figure out new rules of engagement to take into account a new kind of threat (though I realize the threat existed before 9-11, Bush has been able to bring the issue to the forefront of political discourse).

God bless you Jason. You’ve got prayers coming from Wisconsin as well.

Grant, the case made by the US that Iraq presents a threat was not compelling. Very few at the United Nations bought it. So why would the United Nations be working its tail off to develop new rules of engagement that aren’t necessary. The rules are there. If you can convince the UN that pre-emptive action is necessary, then a coalition can attack. If not, you can’t.

Will some of you people make up your minds as to whether the UN is good or bad? To wit: Regarding THIS war, the UN is right. Regarding the sanctions it put on Iraq in 1991, it was wrong to hurt the people like that. Please, stop jumping around.

Regarding the improbable U.S. invasion of Canada, a.k.a. OPERATION LEAF BLOWER: Give me a break. Not since Mexico has the United States invaded a country to acquire or conquer it. And Mexico was hardly worth it. Likewise to the north. We fight for others’ freedom.

Good luck to you, Jason!

Dan,

The case about Iraq being a threat was compelling enough for the U.N. to make the resolution and send weapons inspectors in. But the U.N. does not yet have an adequate plan in place for how to deal with a nation that’s using the time it has been given as a delay tactic (and this is the debate, whether patience or swiftness is the better way in this situation).

The U.N. has no capability to motivate people like Saddam if the U.N. can’t use the threat of force, if it does not have a united front, if sanctions are ineffective, if diplomacy doesn’t work. If France and Germany want to turn the tide of power so that nations with big military might (the U.S.) no longer rule the world, I’m all for it. I might have missed it since much of my information comes from U.S. media outlets (and some of it from Germany’s “Der Spiegel”), but I have seen little evidence that France, Germany or Russia have developed an alternative method of motivation when it comes to a person like Saddam or a nation like North Korea.

I feel like I’m talking to a changed group of people. Two weeks ago I was saying the same things and it was all fine and good. Now I’m deemed anti-American, ungrateful, and extreme. I felt it while in the US during my visit — the feeling that you can’t say certain things. This article sums it up well I think: http://www.onion.com/onion3912/i_should_not_be.html

Grant, I do want to continue the conversation about the UN but don’t want to do so right here and now. I’ll let others continue.

I’ve felt the same way. In some circles, I have to be very careful even if I merely present what I think Bush’s administration is trying to do. People automatically think I’m defending Bush and am therefore one of those evil Conservative Republicans who live in Hicktown, Texas, USA and who obviously aren’t as smart as the open-minded Liberals, who have masters and doctoral degrees from respected LIBERAL-arts academic insitutions.

I agree with you that we as Americans ought to learn how to hear opposing opinions during wartime without losing our war moral (as seemed to happen in Vietnam). It becomes extremely important that we continue to talk about how the world ought to be shaped during and after a war and how it is that we got into this mess in the first place.

Okay, so if you agree that we ought to learn how to hear opposing opinions in a civil spirit, why do you begin your post reinforcing stereotypes? I suspect you are being ironic, and what you are trying to say is that you know that not all conservatives come from texas, but you then seem to be implying that all liberals are condescending. There are, of course, committed thoughtful Christians (and non-christians) on both sides of the fence. We could all do with a bit less name-calling.

okay, that sounded snotty. In fact, I think grant is thoughtful, kind, and not at all the sort of guy who would reenforce stereotypes. Clearly I have misunderstood.

thank you for those nice words. i did not intend to reinforce stereotypes. i’m not sure i was being ironic either. but “hicktown” is an actual place in west texas. it’s just south of “jewish junction”. yeah, i’m sorry. i think stereotypes are really funny. i do. ask anybody.