>Carl Remick:
> >Yes, you must have skipped class the day Prof. Richard Perle
> >explained all this. Perle says it's impossible for democracies to start
> >wars; ipso facto, the US *cannot* be an aggressor.
>
>Or it can't be a democracy. Slight chink, otherwise airtight.
>
>Kelley:
> >they don't give a rat's ass. the _only- thing that checks them is vocal
> >opposition, not outcomes of their wars.
> >
>
>I'd have to disagree there. The primary cause of the withdrawal from
>Vietnam was the fight put up by the Vietnamese, only secondarily the
>opposition back home and the unruliness of the troops. These encouraged
>each other, of course. This assumes that there is a military objective,
>other than selling and consuming military hardware.
>
>Jenny Brown
which pretty much leaves us fucked, doesn't it. from my observation of the drooling warmonger faction, people are just chomping at the bit waiting for iraquis to fight back hard. all the better to blow their asses from here to kingdom come. as carrol notes, people want desperately to believe their govt is right. all the admin needs is some select incidents and they'll work it for all they can.
the chatter by the warmongers on list over the indecency of iraqi citizens shooting at downed POWs in the water--it was all evidence that the iraqi people are barbarians.
new twist for the war and one, no doubt, this administration will pursue with gusto. it's so much easier to gitchyerwaron if you can demonize the people, too.
i think comparing this situation to viet nam is less than worthless. the japanese fought hard. did we pull out? no, we just nuked 'em.
kelley