randomWalks

I would like to have a frank and open discussion about:

a. The real aims being discussed in Rebuilding America's Defenses

b. The anti-war community's interpretation of America's imperialism as it relates to this post's list of documents.

c. Alternatives to the "imperialistic" aims of the United States, for example, using Iraq as a case study.

To begin with, Iraq. All brinksmanship threats aside--if you read "The Art of War," it seems that the United States is taking this route, not to actually invade the country, though that's what they say they are going to to do, but to actually be the shrill voice in the U.N.'s slow, but effective, efforts to get Iraq to disarm.

Let's also look at some facts, debatable as they might be. President Hussein has some clear objectives that he can meet, even as a dictator. He can disarm, a claim that even France, Russia, China, and Belgium agree he should do, and agreed he should do, long before Bush started ranting about going to war. Because he hasn't listened to the U.N. for eleven years, or twelve, he's succeeded in starving to death 1 out of every four children born since 1994, in their months of infancy.

At the same time, however, he's had enormous stores of food. In fact, two weeks or a month ago he handed out six month's of rations to every family in Baghdad, and some are complaining that they have no room for storing it. Where did all that food come from? Why are those children dying if there is that much food around? [not to be seen as this commenter's call for war. i am, in fact, not supporting war.]

Okay, last thing. In regards to the Rebuilding America's defenses. Let's overlook the fact that Cheney and some Reaganists were at the head of that study. What happens if America does not build a solid defense effort? Seriously, what happens?

Other countries will continue to build solid defense efforts, even if America decides its best action is to just send food and economic support to those countries. I would like to hear some ideas as to how America can avoid being Imperialist, and, hopefully, these ideas will not be wild, reactionary ideas. But real scenarios. Given that every modern country in the world is concentrating a large portion of its spending on military expansion and defense infrastructures.

Here are some alternative visions of the ration programme:

Sacramento Bee article

And the War? "We leave that up to God." Government doubles food rations.

We will meet the needs of the Iraqi people.

Food crisis in event of war in Iraq

The program has no cash component, so Iraq only receives goods and services.

douglas, I'm working on a long response to your good questions. One problem is that your questions cover quite a lot of ground. And part of the issue is that you're half accepting the U.S.'s case for war. So I'm trying to respond to what you're asking, but I also need to challenge some of what your questions pre-suppose, i.e., that the U.S. even has the right to disarm another country.

I've tried posting comments twice here, but I can't see them. So I'm not sure if they are here. Anyway, here's another article from the Atlanta Journal Constition, hardly a Leftist rag, that makes the same arguments I was trying to get at with my post.

When I have some confirmation that any of my points have been posted, I'll post my longer response to douglas's questions.

I was just thinking, too, that with all that western military in that part of the world, there's no way that, as Iraq begins to disarm, other countries will try to come in and take over. It's pretty much a safe bet that Iran will stay inside its borders.

And, sorry for posting so much, just read into this, and tell me what you think:

neo-Nato countries to recieve bulk of shifting American military forces.

Rather than make it look like a planned event that Germany would lose American forces, which it held somewhat graciously for decades, the conflict between Germany-France and the US makes a wonderful theatre for the depositing of mobile forces in the eastern eastern states, like POland, romania, Bulgaria. These are countries that Germany and France accept and enjoy healthy trade status in the NATO allegiance.

As Powell said, "We are not destroying the alliance. The alliance is strong."

Keep in mind also that Turkey toys with the idea of accpeting United States troops. And then says no. Turkey, not in any type of healthy relationship with Germany or France, really wants to get into the European Union. They say no. They have a better chance. Well, for what it's worth.

I think that, rather than imperialistically, things are actually working democratically, and things are going pretty much according to plan.

I'm a little cynical about it. But, I think that's what's happening.

The links in my previous post are not working for some reason.

Zagg,

If we do go to war, just know that I'm sorry.

And while I disagree with your vision, I agree with the principles that formulate that vision.

And I want peace, as well.