Subject:
|
world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 25 Sep 2002 09:12:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
443 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
>
> > My axe is pro-justice, not anti-US.
>
> Inasmuch as your pro-justice axe only seems to be aimed at the U.S., I beg
> to differ.
What do you expect, this thread is about US foreign policy!
>
> >
> > > 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.
>
> How's this for a fact: you haven't addressed "They present only so much of
> the story as is convenient for their cause." Claiming that you stick to
> facts is NOT the same as telling the entire story. Since this would be
> inconvenient to you, you do not mention it. Thank you for illustrating my
> point!
Where do you want me to start, Adam and Eve?
>
>
> > > > 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?
>
> And it was answered by me: self-interest. This is the motivation for
> virtually every country - why single out the U.S?
You have asked me that already.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > 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.
>
> Where? You criticize the U.S. for not supporting democracy, and then you
> claim the United States is inconsistent for not supporting democracy. Make
> up your mind. Either criticize it for not supporting democracy, or
> critisize it for being inconsistent.
You have misunderstood me. Bush wants to liberate the people of Iraq. While he
says that, he supports all sorts of oppressive governments. That is the
inconsistency.
>
> > >
> > > > 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.
>
> You did not present an option at the time I answered, it was an either/or.
> Nor, for that matter, do you present an option now. So let me reiterate: as
> your question stands, you'd have to be a complete and utter moron to leave
> the terrorist organization in place.
So why did Bush not sort that terrorist organization pre-911? He knew they were
a big threat. He knew where they were.
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > > 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…
>
> Were they allowed to sing under the Taliban? Are all strictures placed on
> women under the Taliban still there? Are more strictures placed on top of
> those under the Taliban?
Did I say that? Did I even imply that?
> See what I mean about telling half the story: you
> give me one rather lame undocumented "fact", and make no comparison
> contrasting the current regime with the old. You could be right, but who
> can tell through all the self-righteousness. The point I am trying to make
> (if too subtly, so I shall change gears) is that you are your own worst enemy.
>
> > > > > 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?
>
> You mean it is *currently* self-contained, and without us *contributing* to
> the mounds of civilian deaths already inflicted on its own population.
Yes, he is *currently* self-contained. Other nations are not.
> Instead, we should attack our current supporters,
Who said "attack"?
> without a world mandate,
Is there a world mandate to remove Saddam? Is there a world mandate to attack
Iraq? Is there a world mandate for Israel to withdrawal from the occupied
territories? Is there a world mandate for Pakistan to clamp down on terror
groups located on its soil?
>
> betraying our alliances so that no one would ever enter into an alliance
> with us again, to no direct gain for the U.S.
So you advocate the murder of innocents if the US gains?
> If you wish to question those
> alliances, sure, but asking why Iraq rather than the targets you mention is
> just plain silly.
Iraq is not a destabilising force. SH is far too concerned with his own
self-preservation.
>
> Of course, if you asked why bother with *anyone*, I'd be on your side!
>
> >
> > >
> > > > {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.
>
> 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.
>
> 1: You don't mention who actually killed them.
Do you want the pilots' names?
> 2: You do not contradict my statement.
In my view, the average Jo in Iraq and Afghanistan has have nothing.
> 3: Even if the U.S. is solely responsible for 3000-5000 deaths,
> that is a fantastically low number all considered, which would indicate that
> the U.S. really wasn't targeting civilians. The high civilian deaths are
fodder for the "West's" critics.
I'm not saying they were "targeting civilians". Afghan civilians were
sacrificed to protect ground troops. The unwillingness to put troops in danger
meant (probably) that OBL and MO were able to escape.
>
> >
> > > 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."
>
> Let's isolate your next sentence.
You mean read it out of context?
>
> > Now you want to bomb them rather than liberate
> > them!
>
> Who are you talking about? What you wrote is just a vague, self-righteous
> nothing.
"The people who did nothing from Iraq".
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
|
|
|
|
