Subject:
|
Re: world mandate (Re: Why start with Iraq? - (Re: Iraq, Dictators, and Peace))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 26 Sep 2002 17:08:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
417 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> 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.
Hey, "He who mentions Hitler first has lost the argument". Go right ahead! :-)
Scott, c'mon. Stop and look at your answer. Here I accuse you of grinding
an axe against the United States, and all you do is try to sharpen it
further. Who do you think you are fooling?
> >
> > > > 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 already have, several times. I do so again, several times, below.
> > 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? ;)
I would prefer to phrase it that he's consistent in being an idiot.
> > > 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.
Wrong on which count? That you'd have to be a moron to leave the status quo
in place in regards to Osama and Company? You have yet to present an
option. You have yet to present a reason to leave them in place. This *is*
a concession by you by default, I've given you plenty of opportunity to make
your case.
That Bush did not "sort" that terrorist organization pre-911 somehow means
that action shouldn't have been taken post-911? You haven't presented any
reason for trying to make this connection.
That your dodge is not a concession? Oh, I know that: your dodge was just a
cheap debating tactic. Not that every non-answer is necessarily a dodge or
debate tactic, it's just that you do it so consistently that it becomes very
apparent. After a while one is forced to the conclusion that you are
avoiding it for a reason.
>
> >
> > 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(?)
Do you think he would get one at that point? I doubt it. So I'm not sure
what your point is here.
>
> >
> >
> > > > > 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.
This is like a Monty Python routine. "I read the other day that women are
not allowed to sing in public." I see no contrast, no comparison. All you
do is come up with a denial, with no backing (those pesky facts that you
claim to be addicted to). I even gave examples on what kind of comparisons
needed to be made, and you denied making them ("Did I say that? Did I even
imply that"). How in the world you can deny making comparisons in one
breath, claim that you made comparisons in the other, and leave the proof
that you never did at the start of the quote sequence is simply beyond me.
The only person you are fooling is yourself.
>
> > And yet you
> > claim that the situation for women in Afghanistan is just as bad.
>
> No.
No, you don't claim that, or no the situation is not as bad? Either way,
you just proved my original contention, so either is fine by me.
>
> > You are
> > just not getting it, are you?
>
> No, you are just making it up. ;)
I answered myself later on: you are getting it, you just don't want to admit
it. Your answer above is consistent with that.
> > You don't respond to this. I think you are getting it, you just don't want
> > to admit it.
As I said.
> >
> > > > 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?
Who cares? You were claiming that there were better targets, which you
haven't established. That was my only point.
>
> It depends on how you measure the threat. Why do so many in the ME mistrust the
> US so much?
Because of the past policies of British, French, German, etc. colonialism.
Grinding that old axe and leaving out lots of inconvenient facts? (This is
not to deny that *I* don't trust Bush, so why should the countries of the
Middle East)
> Is it worth sorting that, or letting it forment? How much did that
> have to do with 911?
You mean in regards to Iraq? I think Enron-distraction has as much to do
with it as 911. I'm sure Bush would claim that this is part of his
long-term effort against terrorism, and it would be consistent with what he
said almost immediately after 911. Personally, if Saddam doesn't think he
can grab more oil out of his actions, I doubt he would bother.
>
> > 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.
Okay, then it's another example of trying to create a false impression of
complete innocence on Iraq's part.
> > > > 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.
That may have been what you really meant, but it's not what you wrote.
> > > 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?
Is there a world mandate for military action to remove them from occupied
territories? No? Then we are comparing apples and oranges.
> Has the UN not
> already asked Israel to get out?
As I said....
>
> > > > 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”.
Then you have no point. Okay, we can move along then...
>
> > 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.
I just did. Or tried (I feel like a Tymbrimi bouncing glyphs off a Thennanin).
>
> > 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.
Are you saying that if someone is elected by a clear majority (plurality?)
he cannot be a scumbag, or that if Scumbag B is worse than Scumbag A,
Scumbag A cannot be a scumbag? Or are you saying you that you were actually
taking taking me seriously?
Bush drink tea and eat scones? He could never go back to Texas....
>
> > 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”.
And yet you never, ever after countless challenges offer a single
alternative. At a certain point it becomes obvious that you have none to
offer and all you are doing automatic-gainsaying.
>
> >
> > > > 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?
You are claiming that there are better targets, one reason being that Iraq
is not a destablizing force. I disagree, pointing to his past record. You
need to address the one before moving on to the next. Let's presume for the
sake of argument, that Sharon/Israel is a destablizing force. Okaaaaaaaay,
if you are claiming that they are the better target, don't you need to
compare and contrast them? This goes back to what I said earlier: it
doesn't matter if they are a worthy target, or a good target, they have to
be a better target for your original statement to be correct. You
consistently fail to make that point.
> 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.
What about that track record?!? Tell that to the mounds of dead!
> > > >
> > > > 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.
"I'm not going to say that" and then you go ahead and say that? I don't get
it: you are such a reflex denier that you don't realize that you just said
the same thing as I did? You don't realize that you just made my point
about you being your own worst enemy better than I could? Shaking my head
in amazement...
> > > > > 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.
Quote me the sources, quote me the civilian casualties directly caused by
U.S. arms, quote me the civilian casualties caused by Taliban/Al Queda arms,
quote me the civilian casualties caused by others. You spout off how you
stick to facts, and then you come up with these singularly lame and vague
numbers that you "expect" where caused by the U.S.
>
> > >
> > > > 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?
Then you'll be able to back up your claims, won't you, instead of
insinuating that you may be correct?
> > > I'm not saying they were "targeting civilians".
> >
> > Yes you did. Murder of innocents (as if war is that accurate).
>
> Where?
Where? Go back and look at what you wrote!
>
> >
> > > 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?
Only the high-altitude bombers can carry the 7.5 thousand pound bunker
busters. Saying that Afghans were "sacrificed" is pretty blatant
spin-doctoring.
> > > > > 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.
I rather imagine the average Iranian and Kuwaiti will disagree, and with a
lot of evidence, on the part of Iraq. The average Afghani wasn't targeted
(hey, you are claiming you never said they were) so what's your beef on that
account?
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?
Oh no. Who the hell is proud of war? War is hell. That doesn't mean you
are doing anyone any favors by being paralyzed by the fear of it.
Feel proud of the Kuwait dead?
Bruce
|
|
Message has 3 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
|
|
|
|
