A plus for democracy

[jez]

If they achieve this then I'd like to think there'd be fewer Iraqis willing to be Bin Laden's footsoldiers. If they don't, I have no doubt there'll be more of the bastards.

Quite apart from the fact that we are already seeing discontent in Iraq, directed at the Yanks and the Brits, there will always(in this society)be people prepared to fight for Bin Laden/Al Qaeda/other outfits, because they simply don't like US presence in Iraq, Saudi Arabia etc.

The rest of the world is pissed off with America, but countries who were extremely opposed to the war are now sending peacekeepers to the area, so there must be some pretty good diplomatic work going on.

Just a reminder: Even if some governments support terrorism(others, including the USA, partake in terrorism),terrorists such as Bin Laden&co. are not members of any government which may or may not engage in diplomacy with the USA.

To say, that we are going to reduce the risk of terrorism through any 'war on terrorism', is either to be brainwashed or to be brainwashing. The so-called 'war on terrorism' was not invented after 9-11. It's been going on for over 2 decades. The risk of terror has only got worse. Why? Because the major power(s) partake in terror themselves. It's as clear as can be. Only those who don't want to see the truth do not realise it.

[ramchop]

So the jez solution to dealing with terrorists is?:
- listen to them
- agree with their concerns
- leave


What's the jez solution to dealing with genocidal dictators?:
- war? no, you'll only kill the poor
- sanctions? no, you'll only starve the poor
- a strongly worded letter?
- time?

[hanabi]

What's the jez solution to dealing with genocidal dictators?:
- war? no, you'll only kill the poor
- sanctions? no, you'll only starve the poor
- a strongly worded letter?
- time?

Okay, you're just being flippant. There's no such thing as a simple solution to a complicated problem]Fadia Rafeedie[/url]:

We need to see who's responsible for how strong Saddam Hussein has gotten.

When he was gassing the Kurds, he was gassing them using chemical weapons that were manufactured in Rochester, New York.

And when he was fighting a long and protracted war with Iran, where 1 million people died, it was the CIA that was funding him. It was U.S. policy that built this dictator. When they didn't need him, they started imposing sanctions on his people. Sanctions - or any kind of policy - should be directed at people's governments, not at the people.

Mind you, this doesn't mean I think we should play the blame game. But I think we should at least try to learn from past mistakes when making decisions in the future.

(Besides all of which, the Bush administration positioned its concern for the Iraqi people as secondary (if that) to concern over the threat to "the Amerkin peepull.")

[ramchop]

We need to see who's responsible for how strong Saddam Hussein has gotten.

America's fault


When he was gassing the Kurds, he was gassing them using chemical weapons that were manufactured in Rochester, New York.

America's fault


And when he was fighting a long and protracted war with Iran, where 1 million people died, it was the CIA that was funding him. It was U.S. policy that built this dictator. When they didn't need him, they started imposing sanctions on his people. Sanctions - or any kind of policy - should be directed at people's governments, not at the people.

America's fault


I agree it's pointless to play the blame game, and I sincerely wish idiot govts around the world would learn from their mistakes (or if they refuse to take responsibility - the mistakes of their predecessors).

You could take the view that America is trying to clean up the mess they made. But the Iraq mess goes back way before America got involved. The whole issue is very complicated and I simply can't think of a more open way to effectively remove Saddam than by going in with your own troops. The covert 'support the rebels CIA type ops' have been tried many times around the world and they have a tendency to backfire in nasty ways.

Here's a question:
Has an American government ever apologised for its deliberate actions in another country?

[cstaylor]

We need to see who's responsible for how strong Saddam Hussein has gotten

The Iraqis who pulled the trigger... unless you think he flew every sortie himself.

When he was gassing the Kurds, he was gassing them using chemical weapons that were manufactured in Rochester, New York.

And Iraqis pulled the trigger, not the manufacturers from New York.

And when he was fighting a long and protracted war with Iran, where 1 million people died, it was the CIA that was funding him. It was U.S. policy that built this dictator.

No, the small cadre of like-minded Sunnis helped support him, pulling the trigger on anyone who disagreed.

When they didn't need him, they started imposing sanctions on his people. Sanctions - or any kind of policy - should be directed at people's governments, not at the people.

I'd love to hear how you do that. Hand deliver all items directly to the poor in Iraq?

The problem I have with western thinkers like Hanabi is that they completely absolve "the natives" reponsibility from their own actions. I keep hearing from the Left "U.S.! U.S.!" and from the Right "Saddam! Saddam!" but unless Saddam, Qusay, and Uday are supermen that can operate all weapon systems by themselves, they had a substantial following of people pulling the trigger for them.

[American Oyaji]

"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato

So far...

Armageddon will be the big one.
Then the millenial kingdom.

[American Oyaji]

CS.

You hit the nail on the head.

IRAQIS pulled the trigger.

[jez]

"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato

So far...

Yeah, like yesterday and the day before that, and the day before that......But, you're right, one day there will be no more wars because we 'educated' humans will eventually kill ourselves. And at the rate things are going, that day may very soon arrive.

that's your personal opinion. I am a human being, and I have no wish to kill you, or any other human being. Am I abnormal?

[jez]

So the jez solution to dealing with terrorists is?:
- listen to them
- agree with their concerns
- leave


What's the jez solution to dealing with genocidal dictators?:
- war? no, you'll only kill the poor
- sanctions? no, you'll only starve the poor
- a strongly worded letter?
- time?

Did I say that? Don't remember saying that. I said the 'war on terror' is increasing the risk of terror. I said that paricipating in terror increases the risk of counter-terror. You have not denied that. So, if what I say is true(and obviously I believe it is), then it's simple: we need to find an alternative solution. We can have a debate on that. But if you agree that we are increasing the risk of terror(it's pretty obvious to anyone who opens their eyes). you are just as responsible as me for thinking about the solution. I am willing to debate that with you.

[jez]

"Only the dead have seen the end of war." - Plato

So far...

Armageddon will be the big one.
Then the millenial kingdom.

yeah right.

[jez]

CS.

You hit the nail on the head.

IRAQIS pulled the trigger.

CS, Ramchop, AO,
Did you see anyone on this site absolving Saddam? Of course he had followers. He was re-elected by '100%' of his population, wasn't he...?
None of this makes the USA&allies right. It doesn't make them right for supporting Saddam in the past, or for supporting Saudi Arabia or Indonesia(to name 2 examples) in the past and in the present. The idea that the USA is trying to clean up it's mess is daft to say the least.
I have a question: if you guys are Americans, do you feel you are being criticised when people criticise the US gvt? I am half British, half French. A Japanese man once asked me if it was difficult for me, given the opposing views on the war of French and British gvts. Why should it be? Do I have to follow everything the gvts of my countries say? Should I be upset everytime someone disses the gvts of my countries? Should I feel responsible for anything they say or do? Well, maybe I should, but I don't.

[cstaylor]

Did you see anyone on this site absolving Saddam? Of course he had followers. He was re-elected by '100%' of his population, wasn't he...?

I was answering Hanabi's post about the weapons used on the Kurds and during the Iran-Iraq war, in which she claimed that the United States was responsible for Saddam's grasp on power in Iraq. Without stating it specifically, I compared his control of Iraq with Hitler's control of the Germans... there were enough people willing to kill in his name that he stayed in power. Although weapons provided by the United States helped Saddam stay in control of Iraq, without the loyal troops to operate them he would be swinging like Mussolini.

The point of my post was that people who argue like Hanabi did are absolving the natives of their own responsibility. I haven't seen you or anyone else pointing out their culpability.

I have a question: if you guys are Americans, do you feel you are being criticised when people criticise the US gvt?

If they are rational arguments supported by fact and not hearsay, no. When I come away with the impression that the passionate blowhard is generating more heat than light, I usually walk away.

[jez]

Saddam used force, I think that's accepted. Those who weren't forced or who didn't resist were probably brainwashed by propaganda, which is also used by 'wester democracies' which cannot rely on force. The pre war jingoism, and Alistair Campbells performance yesterday before MP's are perfect examples of 'Western democracy' propaganda.
I do not absolve those who could have resisted and didn't. That is exactly the reason I am resisting propaganda from the gvts of my own countries, including the gvt France, which opposed the war for it's own reasons.
There have been plenty of arguments on this site, which have been backed up by facts and references. I'm too tired to do research now, but it's all out there. What I notice, is that all those who refute the evidence, and claim the war was justified, don't come up with anything more reliable than the lies and half-truths served up by Bush, Blair&co. People believed Hitler. They were guilty of following him blindly. This is exactly what is happening in our present-day societies. People are following propaganda, rather than thinking for themselves.

[DJEB]

So the jez solution to dealing with terrorists is?:
- listen to them
- agree with their concerns
- leave


What's the jez solution to dealing with genocidal dictators?:
- war? no, you'll only kill the poor
- sanctions? no, you'll only starve the poor
- a strongly worded letter?
- time?

Or maybe the answer is to make a strawman argument.

[American Oyaji]

I am half British, half French.

That's what your problem is. You're f*cked.

Look. Most people take a lot of pride in their countries. Others like you do not.

Do I take it personal if someone criticizes my country? Only if it is wrong.
You may notice I don't get into political debates for the most part because I believe politicians in this day and age are only in it for the money and power and that modern day democracy isnt worth a load of dingos kidneys.

Big corporations with megabucks(or yen) throw money at lawmakers in the forms of lobbies. In some cases the children of lawmakers work for these lobbies. TRUE political lobbies that are for the betterment of ALL the people are in short supply.

I enjoy being an American, but I am saddened by its continued moral and spiritual decline. One day America will be dust.
Jez, there is always a line that must never be crossed. There is always a perfect standard of right and wrong. And in the ways of man there is always a thread of action that leads to a choice. Why did we support Saddam? So we could destabilize the area and keep the oil flowing. That was wrong. We were pandering to the Oil companies. People complain about the separation of church and state. What about the separation of the State and Corporate money. EXCEPT in the form of taxes.
It's why the rich always get richer and the poor get poorer.
Jez, you are a moral humanist, you think there is a way to sit on the fence and play to both sides. Sorry wrong answer. The only thing sitting on the fence will do is give you a VERY sore ass.

You have to decide are you FOR or AGAINST something. That is the problem with Japan at the moment. No one wants to offend anybody. No one wants anyone to lose face. That is a load of crap. Cut off those that arent trying to fix anything and help those that wont to do the right thing.

In the case of Iraq, the French (ONCE AGAIN PROVING THEY ARE THE HOMOSEXUAL CAPITOL OF THE WORLD. I.E. FENCE SITING WHILE BENDING OVER TILL SOMEONE FUCKS THEM IN THE ASS) wanted to wait and give it time. They did the same thing and the Germans ran all over them. Now they wanted the world to wait for the inspectors to do their jobs. They said the Iraqi government was cooperating. BULLSHIT. The Iraqi government was cooperating about as much as a rape victim cooperates with their attacker. i.e. NOT AT ALL till they have a gun to their head.

I think Bush and Blair could have done it with out all the propagandaizing, but thats their baby and they have to clean up the poop. Saddam needed taken out. His son needed taken out. We couldnt wait for Saddam to die because his son was worse then him. Raping newlywed women on their wedding night and worse atrocities such as killing the husband if he complained about it.

Last time I checked, Bush didn't do that. Nor did Blair.

Sorry for the rant, jez, but you are so full of shit its coming out of that orifice you call a mouth.

I also apologize to all on this board. I am usually quite tame and level headed but I had to vent.

*DEEP BREATHS*

[DJEB]

Being as neutral as I can, I'll say that I've noticed a lot of Americans feel as you do WRT national pride AO, but most of my countrymen/women (Canadians) do not. My personal identity is not connected to the nation state I'm from. I feel strongly a part of my culture (but at this point, I also identify with Japanese culture as well). However, my government or nation state is more a source of shame than anything else.

[American Oyaji]

DJEB, I'm proud to BE an American, but I don't always agree with the government. In fact, most times I disagree with it.

But Japan is the furusato of my heart. If it's an American team vs. a Japanese team in the Olympics or some other international competition, I find myself invariably rooting for Japan.

[jez]

I am half British, half French.

That's what your problem is. You're f*cked.

Actually, it's what saves me. From nationalism

Jez, you are a moral humanist, you think there is a way to sit on the fence and play to both sides. Sorry wrong answer. The only thing sitting on the fence will do is give you a VERY sore ass.

What fence am I sitting on? what am I not choosing between? Please clarify?

(ONCE AGAIN PROVING THEY ARE THE HOMOSEXUAL CAPITOL OF THE WORLD. I.E. FENCE SITING WHILE BENDING OVER TILL SOMEONE FUCKS THEM IN THE ASS)

How can you claim to have the moral highground, and then resort to ad hominems and hatred?

did the same thing and the Germans ran all over them.

Misrepresenting historical facts. You may not know, that the UK's Prime Minister Chamberlain, was the author of the phrase "peace in our time", in defense of the Munich Agreement in 1938(remember: Munich is in Germany; Hitler was in power in 1938; 1938 is the year of the 'Anschluss' of Austria, and the persecution of Jews had started). As for the USA, it didn't enter the war, until it was attacked by Japan. SO for anyone to claim that the USA single handedly saved France/Europe, and therefore deserves eternal gratitude is wrong. Paricularly in the light of US involvement in international terrorism and support for dictatorships in Latin America, Africa, Asia (basically around the world) in the 20th century. You may believe the US government is now attempting to mend the wrongs of the past, but if so, you are seriouisly misled. Either that, or you are on Bush's payroll

[cstaylor]

As for the USA, it didn't enter the war, until it was attacked by Japan.

As a democracy, it didn't really have a choice until a clear and present danger dropped bombs on a naval base in the Pacific. I've got some old recordings of Charles Lindbergh speaking about why the United States should stay out of another European war.

[ramchop]

I know it's a complex issue, and I could have phrased it better, but FUCK! "ad hominems" "strawman arguements" wank wank wank wank wank wank wank.


I'll try one more time:

jez, DJEB, If you were the president of America how would you remove Saddam from power?

[cstaylor]

I think that's their point: they wouldn't... at least not without U.N. support.

[jez]

I know it's a complex issue, and I could have phrased it better, but FUCK! "ad hominems" "strawman arguements" wank wank wank wank wank wank wank.

So why do you want to debate?

I'll try one more time:

jez, DJEB, If you were the president of America how would you remove Saddam from power?

I wouldn't be President of the USA in the first place. I wouldn't be president of any 'state'. If I were, I would be part of the problem.

[jez]

As for the USA, it didn't enter the war, until it was attacked by Japan.

As a democracy, it didn't really have a choice until a clear and present danger dropped bombs on a naval base in the Pacific. I've got some old recordings of Charles Lindbergh speaking about why the United States should stay out of another European war. ]
democracy? Did Iraq attack the USA in 1990? No, it attacked Kuwait. Oh, I forgot. Kuwait was, and is, a US strategic asset.

[ramchop]

I wouldn't be President of the USA in the first place. I wouldn't be president of any 'state'. If I were, I would be part of the problem.

Cop out! It's very clear to me that you're not interested in the real world. You have a dream world fantasy of how the world should be. Continually basing arguements from this theoretical utopia is nudging me further and further to the cst/Gai side of the fence (wow, you are having an effect. good job!)

I was against this war. My PM was against this un-U.N.-sanctioned war, spoke out against it, even jeopardized a free trade argreement in the process. I still largely support her view. However, she now sends peacekeepers to Iraq to help out. That's a practical response, not a pig headed response and I think it's fantastic. So jez, I'll keep my head in the sand, you keep yours in the clouds. I'm done debating with you.


DJEB? Do you have a similar response to my question?

[hanabi]

I was answering Hanabi's post about the weapons used on the Kurds and during the Iran-Iraq war, in which she claimed that the United States was responsible for Saddam's grasp on power in Iraq.

blabbity blah blah

The point of my post was that people who argue like Hanabi did are absolving the natives of their own responsibility. I haven't seen you or anyone else pointing out their culpability.

Um. I was quoting someone, okay? Get it straight. The reason I quoted her was that I didn't think people were taking the U.S. role into serious consideration. The U.S. has blood on its hands too. (See? "too" not "alone") So villifying just one side won't help anything. There are enough people pointing out their culpability that I figured it would just be redundant.

[DJEB]

DJEB, you are dreaming if you think your are neutral. Like a lot of Canadians you have jealousy issues vis-a-vis the US. Jack is the greatest example of this. You don't take personal pride in your country for a good reason. Your country stands for absolutely nothing. America has kept you and the rest of the Western world free for since WWII. That is quite a remarkable achievement when you consider how few Americans it takes to stand off the backward world.

I always get a laugh when you post something in which you claim to know something about me - you have so far had a perfect record for getting it wrong. According to your past posts, I'm either British, European or Australian. Now you claim I have jealous issues based on.... Well, no reason, it just makes you feel good about yourself.

Also, I'm glad you had the chance to thump your chest and feel good about yourself and play your tried "the world owes the U.S. a living" line, but I, for one, am not impressed.

<yawn>

[DJEB]

DJEB? Do you have a similar response to my question?

I haven't had the time to look at the whole thread and I don't yet have time to answer this one, yet. I can start by repeating what a colleague of mine once said: "You must really have to hate people to want to be a leader."

But I don't think that is relevant to your question. After I have some time to check the thread and see if the question itself is relevant, I'll work on an answer; but don't expect to see anything this week.

[jez]

I wouldn't be President of the USA in the first place. I wouldn't be president of any 'state'. If I were, I would be part of the problem.

Cop out!

I'm done debating with you.

Now that's what I call a cop out.

We can have a long debate on why I think leaders(of the kind we have) are part of the problem. However, I'm going to be travelling for a few months, so I won't be able to answer as regularly as usual.
I reject the idea that to be against elitist leadership is a cop out.
I reject the idea that if I am against the kind of society we have, then I must be a Communist/Marxist etc. That, is a silly idea, actually, since Communist societies are/were based on elitist leadership. I don't believe in replacing one elite with another, rich with poor, aristocrats with workers. I believe in putting power/decision in the hands of the people, all the people.
I reject the idea that this is unworkable, utopian.
I reject it, because the kind of society we live in now( an elitist society) creates poverty, hatred, terrorism. Some may believe it's the best we can have. That's ok if you're part of the comfortable minority, living in a western, industralised society which feeds off the misery of the majority.
I reject the idea, that so-called 'western democracies' are trying to make the world a better place, and are dragging the 3rd world into the 21st century. That's pretty much what colonialists said in Africa and Asia. What is happening throughout the world today, and has been happening since the 19th Century, is neo-colonialism. The USA did it in the Phillippines, Latin America, the Middle East, Asia, and continues to do so to this day. What matters to the world's major economic and political powers is not so much democracy(though with more public awareness, they are forced to pretend to show more concern for democracy), but rather, their stronghold on different regions of the world. The governments which opposed the war in Iraq, were no more moral than those which supported it. Governments, by definition, only have their(the elite's)interests at heart.
hope you will not reject debate. If we act without debate, we will only continue to go round in circles, instead of moving forward.

[American Oyaji]

jez,
The problem I have with you is that you are indeed a fencepost sitter. You are content to sit there and not take a side. You are content to sit there while the post slides inexorably up your backside. Another problem is that you are content to point out the problems, but you wont commit to the solution. That is why I call you a fence sitter. You won't come down off of it in support for any one SOLUTION.

Thats why ramchop stopped debating. You can't debate someone that does not pick a side.

You've got serious problems. First of all pull the fencepost out your butt.