Now John Yoo is known to pretty much any person who reads the news and if you are not one of them Yoo bashing is in. Now of course I had traced that event to his book, but honestly considering the bashing I decided it wouldn't require me to join in. Well that was until one of my professors told us to read Yoo...I did not get past page 17. Now why was that? Simple really reading Yoo makes you feel as follows: You just came home to realize that your girlfriend/wife left you with your best friend, you house just burned down and your mother and brother(s)/sister(s) got hit by the bus all at the same time, your dog died while trying to eat a squeaky toy just seconds before your arrival and the house burned down as you arrived, the car was in the garage (thats what you get for walking) your friend chose your best friend and your girlfriend/wife over you and have excommunicated you and any other relative you might have had died in accidents as well. I would say that about sums up the negative effect of the first 17 pages. I would have insisted on a sticker stating 'Read this on your own discretion suicide may result out of reading this material.' But now instead of bashing the horse further I will bash the book, of course as always as I' am human in concept I might be mistaken, while that rarely occurs it does occur. And as such you can as always post and point out how horrifically wrong and lost I' am.
If I tell you to take a hike then don't take it personal its simply that I know that I' am right and you are not if I do that...well ok I like to believe that I consider the other sides points. But Yoo is pushing it and his book is something that should come with a nurse of the suicide ward just to make sure.
Now I will go down through those horrifying 17 first pages point by point and say what I think is wrong in them.
1. The title is completely wrong he called the book 'War by Other Means' now after those pages I would say it should be called 'War by Any Means' because that is what it promotes in those pages. (He might contradict everything he says in those pages in the rest of the book but honestly there is only so much I can take of that book.)
2. He claims in the introduction that Alexendar Hamilton, or rather uses a quote of Madison's to claim, that Hamilton was a Anti-Republic Pro-Democrat, but as far as I can recall Hamilton is a Pro-Republican through and through. I would base the quote on the falling out Madison and Hamilton had after writing the Federalist papers.
Considering that the US today is a warped form of the Republic, but yet it still is not a 'through and through' Democracy because that would make any Representation by elected officials unnecessary the people would make every choice directly by voting on any given issue.
3. Then on Page 2 he quotes Joyce Appleby '...Terrorism is a method, not an ideology; terrorists are criminals, nor warriors.' What he fails to address with this quote is why people revert to Terrorism. First Terrorism means that you attack your enemy not with conventional weapons but Terror to achieve your goal. What could Al-Quaeda want? Well they have stated repeatedly that they want those they consider 'Invaders' to leave the Middle East in other words us, the Westerners. Why would they want this? Because they want to handle their own affairs, many countries are not happy with the influence a military base of another country has on a region. For example Germans have often protested and wanted the US bases closed, the reason why that did not go through was because the government was afraid of what might happen economically when the business of those bases left the country. But overall those bases are causing many problems, the locals are boarded out and the Soldiers stationed there do not try to fit in and expect the locals to speak English instead of speaking the local language. The children those soldiers have are often angry at being put in this environment which they do not necessarily like because they want back to their home country. And that anger often is released in vandalism.
I would not be able to name any Terror group who did not have any aim because its a tool only desperate people use if they see no other way out any more. If those who command the soldiers will not listen to you what do you do?
4. Yoo claims that 'War is too important to be the subject of partisan politics.' I would have to answer that it is far to important to not be considered carefully, to not be analyzed by everyone involved to insure that the war is not fought over some pride issue. To attempt to see the other sides view maybe they are right and they are being pushed in a corner and they see no other way out anymore but lashing out at those they see to be the aggressors.
I would like to point out two things here, first the US projects the image of being democratic not a Republic, by doing so every citizen is to blamed as well for the actions of the country. In a democracy the people of the country are part of the decision making process and thus are to blame for any action taken by the government.
Second the US often acts only and purely on self interest ignoring the people who are living in the local area. This causes a certain dislike while at the same time bombarding the world with Hollywood movies showing how good the US citizens have it.
Seeing as I have already written so much I will retain the other points for responding to critics. I had intended to make 30 points and stop there but this is already long enough.
