Subject:
|
Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 26 Sep 2002 12:05:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
411 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> 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.
Shall I compare Bush to Hitler? The fact that some of what Bush Jr suggests the
USA should do is against international law should be enough.
>
> > > 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’ll tell you what, you show me which facts you think I am omitting.
>
> > > > > > 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.
You mean I did not answer to your satisfaction.
>
>
> > > 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.
So he’s being consistent in being inconsistent? ;)
>
> > > > > > 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).
You’d be wrong. I don’t think the collective you does feels any safer. That’s
how bush is able to rule by paranoia.
>
> To answer the dodge-question: he didn't have a world mandate to proceed in
> the fashion that he had until after 911.
If I remember correctly, Bush wanted to sideline/downgrade the whole issue
rather than get a world mandate(?)
>
>
> > > > 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.
I did.
> And yet you
> claim that the situation for women in Afghanistan is just as bad.
No.
> You are
> just not getting it, are you?
No, you are just making it up. ;)
>
> >
> > > 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.
What does it mean then?
It depends on how you measure the threat. Why do so many in the ME mistrust the
US so much? Is it worth sorting that, or letting it forment? How much did that
have to do with 911?
> I note you pass on commenting pro
> or con on my correction about the civilian deaths that are happening in Iraq.
I’m not sure I view that as a correction.
>
> >
> > > 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.
Your wrong. I did not say the US should attack anyone in anyway. I said they
should withdraw support from belligerent nations like Israel.
>
> >
> > > 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...?
It appears to be you who does not respect world opinion. Is there a world
mandate for Israel to withdrawal from the occupied territories? Has the UN not
already asked Israel to get out?
> > > 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.
I viewed it as a statement. I’m not suggesting the US does anything 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".
Enlighten me.
> 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!")
He is elected by a clear majority, and is not wanted for murder or crimes
against humanity (IFAIK) – Bush Jr has shared tea and scones with far worse.
> 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.
I have never advocated “do nothing”.
>
> > > 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.
What about Sharon/Israel? What about that track record – worthy of tea and
scones in DC? The reality is that if SH were (still) a friend of the USA, his
antics
over the last 10 years would not trouble Bush Jr.
>
> >
> > >
> > > 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...
I’m not going to say that, its not my view. I think people like SH, Sharon,
Arafat etc should be put in jail. But its not up to Bush Jr to decide who and
when, and its not Worthing killing 1000’s of civilians to do it. Getting rid of
them is the right thing to do, but not at any price.
>
>
> > > > 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.
I expect the vast majority of the deaths were due to US actions. I only recall
1 or 2 being due to UK forces.
> >
> > > 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."
Perhaps it’s not BS? Perhaps the critics of the west are correct on that issue?
>
> >
> > I'm not saying they were "targeting civilians".
>
> Yes you did. Murder of innocents (as if war is that accurate).
Where?
>
> > 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?
High altitude bombing was used instead lower altitude bombing or ground troops.
This saved the lives of servicemen, but was not as accurate. Afghan civilians
were sacrificed to protect ground troops and pilots. OK?
>
>
> > > > > 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.
In my view, the average Jo in Iraq and Afghanistan has done nothing. And to
award Jo Iraq during desert storm we broke Article 54 of the Geneva Convention
targeted his survival and killed 1000’s of his countrymen. Feel proud?
Scott A
>
> 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
|
|
|
|
