Subject:
|
Re: What about the first?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 18 Feb 2003 19:47:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1492 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > > Mike's point is that the enemy is not a nation state, but rather
> > > _territory-less_ religious fanatics from (and supported by) many states. The
> > > only way to prevent terrorism is to deal HARSHLY with states who would and do
> > > support them.
> >
> > Religious fanatics are not an exclusive of the muslim belief, as you are
> > much well aware of; and they exist everywhere, not only under dictatorships.
>
> It's not that I have a problem with religious fanatics, it's what those
> fanatics *do*. I would venture that 90% of the world's terrorism is
> perpetrated by Muslim fanatics.
Historical circumstance. In the past others undertook the majority of what
can now be called terrorist actions; in the future, others (non-muslim, that
is) will; it's a never ending and unavoidable cycle. More: it is not
dependent on religions "per se", it's dependent on groups with agendas,
which range from the 1 bn muslims to the 3 people that make up my fan club (1).
Human civilizations follow a well deligned historical pattern in their
development, it may well be the case that Islam is now in the same state of
development as Catholicism in the 1400's, for instance. What made
Catholicism "evolve" since in its approach to violence? The followers got
fed up with being told what to do at all times, that "this is bad and that
is good" and such - and they forced the Church to stick to business, that
is, "save souls". The same is bound to happen in Islam, more so now that we
live in societies which tend to become post-religious.
> > The assumption one state is sponsoring/allowing such fundamentalists to
> > exist in their territory can not become "casus belli", otherwise every
> > single state on Earth would become a target (and paradoxally none would have
> > the legitimacy to attack it!)
> > You're just entering the fanatics game when you want to destroy the country
> > that supports them.
>
> The US has *no* intention of destroying Iraq, but merely deposing Saddam.
Under what right? God given? The UN? Out of the President's brilliant mind?
What then?
(Please note that I don't say there isn't a right to depose Saddam; I only
want to know from where it comes, if it exists in fact - and remember any
response to this has foreseeable repercussions in more than one aspect of life)
> Unfortunatley, it will take war to accomplish this.
I cannot comment, unless I have an answer to what I just asked: is there a
right to intervene - if so, from where does it come?
Consistent with the answer to that, I can then say if I think war is
justified or not. Right now, I honestly don't know if it is. And I rather
have peace until my doubts are gone, instead of having a war and later find
out it was fought for the wrong reasons.
> > Do you know they say roughly the same about the US? And
> > that they too have a point, even though you'll never admit it to be equal in
> > style to your own?
> > Sure, there's a big difference between throwing planes into buildings and
> > selling arms to one's enemy. But both actions have the same effect on the
> > collective psique, which is not prepared to accept neither.
>
> No, there is a *huge* difference. Guns don't kill people; people do.
Planes don't kill people. People do.
> Arms are
> not inherently evil;
I cannot be transported by a gun from point A to point B and back; the
ticket is one way only.
> in fact they can serve a very positive purpose-- self
> defense. I don't accept that there is a "mea culpa" for weapons sales, unless
> perhaps we are talking about WoMD. But that is another debate:-)
True - another debate.
> > > The people of Iraq should be asking themselves: Do I *really* support Saddam
> > > Hussein enough to undertake a war which I am sure to loose at a possibly
> > > horrific cost? Because the fact is that if SH were to be deposed (internally),
> > > the case for war against Iraq would be largely defused.
> >
> > Allow me to draw a parallel:
> > Does the average Cuban care about Castro, or does he fear what would come
> > after him? Let's see: the man does enjoy some honest reverence in his land,
> > but because he's more of a nationalist hero than because of his communist
> > beliefs. Or do you really think that it was a common belief in communism
> > that made the cubans unite against the Bay of Pigs landing???
>
> Castro is a good example. When he had missles pointed at us, he became an
> extreme threat to the US.
*Ahem!*
Despite being called "the cuban missile crisis", the only thing the cubans
had to do with it was the territory; the missiles were Soviet owned, and
Soviet operated.
> Though we failed to depose him with our debacle at
> the Bay of Pigs, he has turned out to be, although repressive to his people,
> harmless as a destabilizer of world security.
Precisely. He's actually a reference in world stability! :-P
> So if he is what the Cubans
> want, then so be it. Democracy in Cuba will have to wait for his death by
> natural causes.
In essence, that's correct. And more important, democracy will have to be
home-grown; the cubans will look suspiciously any attempt of the US to
interfere with their evolution to democracy. The best way to ensure they can
have a democracy is keep a low profile and help when asked to :-)
> > Now transpose to Iraq: the average iraqui is perfectly aware Saddam is a
> > cruel dictator, so they live their lives in relative distance from politics.
> > But there are latent nationalistic feelings... so they'd rather defend him
> > as an *iraqui* dictator than to have a "foreign supported" democratic
> > leader. It's hard to understand as a line of thinking (for us, who live
> > under democratic principles already), but it is more than a mere possibility
> > and it is being conveniently ignored by those who say he'll lose support
> > upon invasion.
>
> If Saddam were merely a cruel dictator that the Iraqis were able to tolerate,
> then there wouldn't be a problem.
I think I know what you meant, but it's not what it appears from what's
written; would I be right in consider he'd be "less of a problem", instead
of a "no problem"? ;-)
> But the trouble is that he is a militant
> bent upon distabilizing world security. People like this should NEVER have
> access to WoMD because they cannot be trusted. He is a liar and should be
> removed.
People should not have access to WoMD, period. Too bad Oppenheimer didn't
realize he was opening a Pandora's box in due time :-/
As for him being a liar: he's a politician. That said...
> > I do agree with you that it would be *a whole lot easier for everyone* if
> > Saddam were ousted, or even abdicated voluntarily. Even for him it would be
> > easier! But instead of investing in that option, what we see now is a lot of
> > khaki in the Kuwaiti desert. (The CIA has been sleeping in working hours... :-)
>
> As I mentioned before, how *else* to depose him? Perhaps what the world needs
> *is* a Rainbow Six unit (Clancy novel _Rainbow Six_, a very plausible answer to
> terrorism). This situation would be a perfect application:-)
I know the game (never played it, though). As repugnant as I may find
assassination, this is one of the cases when it may be an option. He has
been given a chance to depart voluntarily, thus saving himself and allowing
for change from within, so I can't say I'll feel sorry if it happens.
OTOH, assassination would make him a martyr. And it might be wrongly
interpreted by those for whom it would be undertaken, ie, the iraquis. A
good diplomat knows how to weight these options better than me, hopefully.
> > The question now is: "what comes after Saddam?"
> > If he is kicked out, it is more than likely to be another military dictator.
> > If he abdicates, it's the same. So far, no gains for the people.
>
> But *at least* this dictator wouldn't be a distabilizer to world peace (or else
> *he'd* be assisted out;-)
And the next one, and the one after him, and so one...
Like I say, assassination is repugnant and MUST NOT be used as a system.
Because it's not a panacea, it also creates its own troubles!
> > If war goes ahead, and he loses, two options are possible: military
> > government by the US, in which case little would change in the relation of
> > the commonfolk with the government; or a puppet government (1), which would
> > never be able to grant popular support even if it were truly democratic!
>
> We can only hope. At least Iraq has enough oil that, if the money were to
> actually go to help improving the lives of her citizens, then *dramatic*
> results would occur. And it's hard to argue with success.
True. Of course you realize that to the average iraqui (and not only
him/her) the eagerness of the US to invade can be interpreted as a push to
gain hold of their wealth. Not necessarily in the sense of possession, more
in the sense of "control". And they don't want to change for *that*, since
it would mean a part of the GNP would be "diverted" from Iraq as profits
from the investors, therefore reducing the gain of the society in a
post-Saddam environment.
Pedro
(1) - that is obviously a joke, but I think it serves as a possible example :-)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) <snip> (...) It's not that I have a problem with religious fanatics, it's what those fanatics *do*. I would venture that 90% of the world's terrorism is perpetrated by Muslim fanatics. (...) The US has *no* intention of destroying Iraq, but (...) (22 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
91 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
