Subject:
|
Re: Why the founding fathers limited government scope (was Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 12 May 2001 19:41:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
816 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> > Saddam sees confusion in Iran and makes a grab for the oil fields (and not
> > the first time they've fought about that). Unless you subscribe to
> > orbiting-mind-control lasers (fnord!) that's pretty much right as Saddam's
> > feet. You're not really linking the skullduggery to the act - all it seems
> > you are offering is just it's-all-a-conspiracy vagueness. I'm not saying
> > that there isn't sneaky stuff happening, but whitewashing Saddam over what
> > was ultimately his decision seems the apologist route.
>
> They guy's a greedy thug and a butcher, no problem with that. Invading
> Kuwait was his fault, no problem with that. But we still supported the
> bastard throughout the 80's, right? The Kuwaitis still aggravated the issue
> and America rejected Iraq's pleas in the U.N. And we knew what was going to
> happen and let it because it was good for business since the Cold War was
> over. That's my take on it. Not the apologist, just owing up to what really
> happened and what our part was.
Why did the US support Saddam? Why, because he was better than
that bloodthirsty, nasty Shi'i Khomeini, that's why! (If you
can't detect sarcasm there, you need your brain checked.) We
figured that since Saddam was "secular" and willing to play
ball, and Khomeini was the religious leader of Iran who overthrew
our little Shah and refused to play the game our way (even Iran-
Contra doesn't count, because the US didn't set the terms on
which Iran bought), then Saddam must naturally be the better
guy and a defender of capital-D Democracy! (Or was that
capital-D Death?)
Khomeini got a really bad rap, much much worse than Qaddafi.
It's stunning how skewed our exposure to him really was--as
though the entirety of his being was "Death to America, the
Great Satan".
> > Perhaps I wasn't clear. I understand you are sceptical of the Saudis and
> > Kuwaitis - does the *rest* of the arab world support Saddam snatching Kuwait?
>
> I see what you're saying. Well, I believe none of the Arab nations supported
> the invasion (I'm not sure of Libya or Syria) but most of them, with the
> exception of Saudia and Kuwait, did not support Western military
> intervention. They called it an "Arab matter", just like our ambassador told
> Iraq before the invasion.
Saudia? That's a new one. :) But one never fully knows
what will happen until the chips are down. It may not be
so much what happened as *how* and the excesses that attended
it.
But recall that, in the end, many of the ruling houses of
Arab nations (note that point--Egypt doesn't count!) are
still the same ones that were perched there by Western
mandatory Powers. King Hussein was of the same Hussein
family that--spelt Husayn--was doublecrossed at Versailles.
Ibn Saud, the father (I believe) of King Fahd, politically
outmanoeuvered Sharif Husayn, who also sought the throne
of Arabia, but he was abetted in this goal by Western powers.
The Ba'ath Party, like it or not, toppled one of these
puppet Western monarchies in Iraq, and so it's little wonder
who will be seen as the greater threat to the status quo
by the "old guard" in the region.
> > John Wayne was a racist, but telling people that upsets them.
Well, sure. So was Abraham Lincoln. (Read some of his writing,
it's quite shocking.) But we must judge them by the times in
which they lived, because that's the litmus, and that's the only
way we can ever truly understand history. (And before anyone
brings *that* up, note that genocide is wrong by virtually any
temporal standard save, say, the Old Testament. I'm not a *total*
relativist.)
> > Anyway, you
> > are correct, too many people think we can do no wrong, nor do evil things.
> > Sometimes we actually do good things, sometimes we just try and put a good
> > face on it, sometimes we even try and do good things and get lost along the
> > way, and other times we do fairly rotten things. Those that key only on the
> > good aren't being realistic, but those that just key on the bad are equally
> > unrealistic.
>
> Agreed, there are a lot of noble things to mention about our country,
> especially in the field of medicine. However, there are so many rotten
> things, especially in the past two decades, that seem to overshadow the
> good. I used to be more idealistic but I'm seeing too much of our nation's
> motives being driven by greed rather than a genuine attitude of world
> solidarity.
That is, IMHO, a sign of our times that we feel that way. It
mostly betokens alienation of ourselves from our governments,
and an increasing feeling of facelessness and namelessness in
a rapidly changing world. That is, in its rudest form, called
"despair."
I tend still to be an optimist, however. :)
all best
LFB
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
246 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
