[Fwd: Iraq Dispatches: Inside Abu Hanifa mosque during attack

[boblq]

On Wednesday 01 December 2004 10:20 am, JD Runyan wrote:
> boblq wrote:
> > Here we agree. I think we should enlarge that chink not ignore or
> > abolish it. I can see an extension of the Geneva Conventions that
> > within a millennium or two would lead to the concept that War itself
> > is a crime and that those who pursue when found guilty are given
> > sentences appropriate to that crime.
>
> How do you stop, capture, punish someone who is waging war?  I suggest
> that you engage them in war, and defeat them.

In a word, overwhelming force as a preventative. You stop them or 
contain them before significant damage is done. Thus war prevention
becomes police action. Think about it a moment. It has been about 
100 years since there has been a major war on the North American 
continent. Why is that? 

> > I do think that the greater long term problem is tyranny. A massive
> > global police state may well reduce war to the sort of gang warfare
> > we see in our cities (where last year 17000 homicides occurred)
> > and create a world without War but with economic Slavery that
> > is effectively worse. A world without War but segmented into
> > "haves and have mores" and "have nots" may be less attractive
> > than a world where war makes this segmentation still contentious.
>
> I agree the tyranny of a police state is a far greater threat, then most
> of the dictators.  Sadly both sides of the political spectrum gravitate
> towards this tyranny. They just have different motivating causes, for
> lack of a better word.

The causes are not necessarily ideological. They are structural. The same
overwhelming force that prevents war can easily degenerate into a force
supporting tyranny. Therein lies the dilemma. 

We already have this problem with the ordinary police in our cities. 
Ask why the "peaceful" USA has the highest per capita incarceration 
rate in the world. 

> > I suppose we do to some extent agree here. When Bush decided, and as
> > the last election appears to show a majority of US voters agreed, that
> > the US  would invade Iraq despite a lack of real provocation then we
> > joined that stream and turned our backs on an honorable tradition of not
> > starting wars.
>
> Let us not forget that Iraq had been violating a cease fire agreement
> for 10 years. I never saw this as a new war, but simply a resumption of
> hostilities.  I know others see it very differently, but the lines are
> not as clearly drawn as we all would like when it comes to Iraq.

But had our intelligence been as good as it now appears the intelligence
being generated by the UN inspectors was then we could have
continued on a path of containment indefinitely.  

boblq