Subject:
|
Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 25 Sep 2002 16:55:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
405 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> What do you expect, this thread is about US foreign policy!
And that means said foreign policy must be analyzed in a vacuum? Nonsense.
You are doing so because it suits your purpose and you explanation is just
an excuse.
> > 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?
What? Not even "facts" this time?
> > > > > 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.
You didn't answer it before, and you didn't answer it yet again just now.
Axe-grinding.
> > 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.
I don't see how that is inconsistent. He's doing the exact same thing as
his daddy. Very consistent.
> > > > > 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.
This does not affect my answer to your question in any way ("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?") - it is a complete non sequitor.
If you wish to discuss the pre-911 scenario, that is a different matter:
I'll count your dodge as a concession that you can't fault my answer (you'd
have to be a moron to leave the terrorist organization in place).
To answer the dodge-question: he didn't have a world mandate to proceed in
the fashion that he had until after 911.
> > > 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?
That's the whole point! You make no contrast, no comparison. And yet you
claim that the situation for women in Afghanistan is just as bad. You are
just not getting it, are you?
>
> > 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.
You don't respond to this. I think you are getting it, you just don't want
to admit it.
> > 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.
That doesn't mean that they are a bigger threat to the interests of the
United States and thus a better target. I note you pass on commenting pro
or con on my correction about the civilian deaths that are happening in Iraq.
>
> > Instead, we should attack our current supporters,
>
> Who said "attack"?
You did, by implication, since that what was being discussed. Better
targets. "Attack" can be a variety of formats, not just military, if you
want to nit-pick.
>
> > without a world mandate,
>
> Is mandate to remove Saddam?
Who can tell what the point was with your breaking down of complete sentences?
> Is there
I can...
> a world
...play games....
> mandate
...to take things...
> to attack
...out of context....
> Iraq?
...and disrupt the flow, too.
> 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?
Gosh, and you seemed so contemtuous of the world mandate for action in
Afghanistan. Oh, and the answer to my question is...?
> > 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?
1) You never actually respond to my question. I take that as a dodge and
that you really are conceeding that you are advocating that the U.S. should
backstab its allies for no earthly gain. You are so concerned with
face-saving and maintaining the offensive it never occurs to you that I
might find fault with the current selection of "friends and allies". 2)
There are lots of scumbags in the world. The majority of the UN is made up
with scumbags. The reality is that that's what you have to work with. God
knows, look at Blair! (and if it makes you feel better, Brits can say "God
knows, look at Bush!") 3) No, I don't advocate the murder of innocents.
You seem to, though. You give me the choice "Action in Afghanistan, or do
nothing" after the murder of innocents and find fault with the "action" answer.
> > 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.
Iraq is not a destabilizing force? I take it you feel his track record is
something that should be sealed by the court and not considered.
>
> >
> > Of course, if you asked why bother with *anyone*, I'd be on your side!
You let this slide without comment? I swear, you are your own worst enemy...
> > > But 3000-5000 of them ended up dead.
> >
> > 1: You don't mention who actually killed them.
>
>
> Do you want the pilots' names?
No, the name of side that actually killed them. Saying 3000-5000 died and
leaving it hanging by implication that the U.S. killed them is yet another
of your "facts" that doesn't tell the whole story.
>
> > 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.
Whoa. Wait a minute. I didn't type that last sentence, you did. If the
high civilian deaths are fodder for the West's critics, why do you use the
same tactic? It's like admitting, "Oh, I want to use the same B.S. because
it is convenient for me."
>
> I'm not saying they were "targeting civilians".
Yes you did. Murder of innocents (as if war is that accurate).
> 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.
Afghan civilians were "sacrificed"? What in the world are you babbling about?
> > > > 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?
No, I wanted to make it clear what part of the paragraph I was replying to.
>
> >
> > > 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".
Oh, the ones that "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? Didn't you just dodge this above...oh yes, you did. Sorry
for being forced to repeat myself.
Bruce
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
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
|
|
|
|
