To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 17726
17725  |  17727
Subject: 
Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Mon, 23 Sep 2002 19:12:56 GMT
Viewed: 
312 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:


Israel is a victim. It is victim of its own history.

I can take that any number of ways.

However, none of that
excuses its actions or what it suffers. It is a human rights abuser pure and
simple. The USA actively supports it.

The USA actively supports Israel, yes.  So do others.  You seem to be
grinding an anti-US axe.  Axe-grinders opinions are generally speaking, not
to be trusted.  They present only so much of the story as is convenient for
their cause.




Why back “democracy” in Kuwait?

Now you are just being contradictory.  Make up your mind whether you are
going to criticize the United States for for opposing democracy or
supporting it.


Does Kuwait really have democracy?

Who cares?  I was merely pointing out that you were being inconsistent.

I'm not; democracy does not exist in Kuwait.

Then why bring it up rather than whatever is your real point?  Beyond the
axe mentioned above?

During Desert Storm this was
pointed out. We were told it would exist after the war. It still does not.
So, where is my inconsistently?

So where is the United States' inconsistency then?

Why
back & fund the warlords in Afghanistan?

Because the alternative was worse?

Worse for Afghans or the USA?

Are you advocating a Chamberlainesque approach and do nothing after
thousands died and letting thousands more?

No.

Of course you are.

The situation in Afghanistan existed before 911.

.......so?

Now we have replaced
one set of thugs with another set. In the process we have done some
recruiting for OBL. Do you feel safer?

Let's see, hmmmmmm, a terrorist organization left in place untouched and
given sanctuary by a foreign power, or topple them both but not quite get
all the cockroaches scurrying under rocks?  Which scenario do I feel safer
under? This is a trick question, right?

Okay, I won't beat about the bush (oooooooooo), you'd have to be a singular
moron to select "Leave terrorist organization in place when you have a world
mandate to do otherwise".



And I take it you weren't a
woman living in Afghanistan under the Taliban....

Indeed not. Women there are treated little better today.

Do you mean they are still not treated well?  Of course.  Are they treated
as badly?  Not that I have seen.  Perhaps you can direct me to some
(non-partisan) documentation.





Why start with Iraq?

Are you insinuating that there is a better target?

There may well be. Why not tighten the screws on Musharraf, the Saudi’s or
Sharron? These guys rely on support from the USA - particularly Sharron.
Human rights in the Middle-East would improve overnight if the USA stopped
equipping the IDF. A positive outcome would be reached without directly
risking US servicemen. Personally, I find that “easier” than killing 1000's
of Iraqi civilians to get one man... just to replace him with a pro-West
stooge. Remember, 1000’s were killed in Afghanistan to get two men – and
neither was found.

Ohhhhhhhh, I see, Iraq has done nothing!

Did I say that?

Actually, yes, by implication.  You need to make a comparison to define
something as a "better target" and you made none.

{1} You asked if there was a better target - I showed you a few.

No, you didn't.  "Better" requires a comparison.  You made none.  Show me a
*better* target, not merely a good and deserving target.

{1} The people of Iraq have "done nothing"... just like the people of
Afghanistan had "done nothing".

The "people" who "did nothing" were not the target of U.S. attacks in
Afghanistan.  The "people" who "did nothing" from Iraq that happened to be
in Kuwait when the "people" of Kuwait who had "done nothing" were getting
tortured, robbed and murdered were doing....what?

Bruce



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace)
 
(...) My axe is pro-justice, not anti-US. (...) That is why I stick to fact, not opinion. I suggest you do the same. (...) My original point was why attack Iraq at the same time as supporting the misdeeds of others? (...) See above. (...) There is (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace)
 
(...) Israel is a victim. It is victim of its own history. However, none of that excuses its actions or what it suffers. It is a human rights abuser pure and simple. The USA actively supports it. (...) I'm not; democracy does not exist in Kuwait. (...) (22 years ago, 23-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

61 Messages in This Thread:


















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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR