Subject:
|
Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 24 Sep 2002 08:02:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1975 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> 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.
My axe is pro-justice, not anti-US.
> Axe-grinders opinions are generally speaking, not
> to be trusted. They present only so much of the story as is convenient for
> their cause.
That is why I stick to fact, not opinion. I suggest you do the same.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > > > 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?
My original point was why attack Iraq at the same time as supporting the
misdeeds of others?
>
> > 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?
See above.
>
> > > > > > 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".
>
>
There is more than one way to skin a cat.
> >
> > > 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.
I read the other day that women are not allowed to sing in public…
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > 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.
I shall spell it out for you. Right now Iraq is a problem. But it is largely
self contained and is managed without inflicting civilian deaths. There are
other nations on the planet who are actively destabilising their region. Why
not start with them?
>
> > {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.
See above.
>
> > {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.
But 3000-5000 of them ended up dead.
> 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?
In the message which started this thread Mike said: "Either way I am baffled
to no end at how anyone can think liberating a people living under a
dictatorship is a bad idea." Now you want to bomb them rather than liberate
them!
Scott A
>
> Bruce
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
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
|
|
|
|
