|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
 Posted - 05/21/2003 : 13:22:10 [Permalink]
|
Welcome aboard, Owhufc, but what's the point?
quote:
Name two countries where the U.S has not run/aided terrorist groups and win a toaster. (terms and conditions apply)
You're from G.B. Most likely you refer to the IRA as terrorists, but I think you may get some argument about that in some Irish-Catholic communities in Northern Ireland, and even in some areas of North America. But, let's give this a shot, anyway...How about Lichtenstein and New Zealand?
Oh, and I may have forgotten to mention, one of the lovely ladies of our home just recently decided that we needed a new toaster, when we already had one that worked just fine, but it didn't match the new color of the kitchen walls. No wonder we're always broke! (And, a can openner, too, and we keep the things in the cabinet!)
Sorry, just venting... |
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
 |
|
|
owhufc
New Member
United Kingdom
2 Posts |
Posted - 05/22/2003 : 08:58:58 [Permalink]
|
errrr I suppose the point I was making is that it goes without saying that any member of the U.S government that dares to bemoan terrorism is having the most monumental laugh.
Lichtenstein is a principality and New Zealand is really England 50 years ago. No toaster for you.
|
Blah Blah etc. |
|
|
|
WindupAtheist
New Member
41 Posts |
Posted - 05/22/2003 : 13:53:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
According to the Constitution of the United States, the treaties that the United States signs are the law of the land. So we are talking about not only violations of international law, but U.S. law.
Firstly, the concept of "international law" is a fraud. Since no nation is willing to accept a greater body as having real power over it, what passes for international law is basically mob rule. "Don't use mustard gas, or we'll pound you!" Secondly, an argument can be made that Iraq violated the terms of the cease-fire from the first war, and that this second war was only a continuation of the first.
quote:
Strong words. Whatever happened to the idea that one can dissent through love and respect for their gov't, and attempting to steer it down a more ethical path? Who is the real patriot?
It was pissed on and diluted beyond any use by anti-war types who insisted on using it in the defense of even the most illogical and venemous statements. Dissent does not NECCESSARILY equal some sort of respect for the American ideal. Sometimes you just have idiots like Gorgo, who hate everything the country does.
quote:
attack another country you've supported throught their worst crimes
Speaking of whom, look at this little tidbit. Pretty typical bit of illogic, really. Time may pass, politics may change, different leaders may be elected, and new events may take place, but apparently if we've supported a country in the past we can NEVER make them our enemy. Guess that whole Cold War thing was pretty silly, since we supported the Soviet Union in it's fight with Nazi Germany.
Nonetheless, the criticism that we supported Saddam in the past has it's share of validity. To that I say "Oops, we shouldn't have been nice to him back then. Good thing we pummeled him now."
quote:
Look, Windup, you know as well as the rest of us that a sincere and benevolent respect for the safety and the human rights of the Iraqi people was as about as important as the mileage it got in the world press. So, don't act so damned indignant. It's all about national and corporate interest, and the retention of political power.
To this I say... fucking DUH. That last sentence was pretty much the entire history of human civilization summed up in one neat little bundle. Am I supposed to look badly on what I consider a positive outcome, just because I'm pretty sure the politician in charge was thinking about politics?
quote:
Arbitrarily choosing which bad boys we need to take down next is not a very consistent foriegn policy.
So you take down the ones whose defeat also happens to further your strategic interests. As long as they ARE bad, why should I cry for them?
quote:
Hear that bang in the distance? That's fourty years of US foreign policy.
This brouhaha was effectively the death of the Cold War western world, after a decade or so of it cruising on autopilot. It showed the US and some (certainly not all!) countries in Europe that, without a unifying Soviet threat, they don't have much use for each other. On a side note, I think we need to pay less attention to Europe and more to Asia these days. China and India are the countries that will be making noise over the next 100 years, not France and Germany. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 05/22/2003 : 15:31:16 [Permalink]
|
| Right. Except when it comes to the U.S. or its cohorts.enemies of the U.S.[quoteFirstly, the concept of "international law" is a fraud. [/quote] |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 05/22/2003 15:33:26 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/22/2003 : 15:54:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Firstly, the concept of "international law" is a fraud. Since no nation is willing to accept a greater body as having real power over it, what passes for international law is basically mob rule. "Don't use mustard gas, or we'll pound you!" Secondly, an argument can be made that Iraq violated the terms of the cease-fire from the first war, and that this second war was only a continuation of the first.
Then forget a concept like international law. Consider, if you will, a simple concept like right and wrong. The whole fricken world things the USA did the wrong thing. To them it is criminal. So what if we didn't sign on the dotted line to accept international law. Neither did Himler. I don't think you get it.
And your argument about about Iraq violating terms of the original cease fire has been around a while now and we are still waiting any proof no matter how sweet it is when you roll it around in your mouth.
@tomic |
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
WindupAtheist
New Member
41 Posts |
Posted - 05/22/2003 : 21:57:42 [Permalink]
|
International law is a sham, but it's one all the players are willing to employ whenever it suits them. All nations act in their own self-interest to the best of their ability, it's just a matter of how much of a mess they make in the process. And frankly, reluctance to make a mess usually stems more from fear of other nation's reactions rather than any moral sense.
As for what other nations think, what the hell do I care? Saddam was a bastard. I'm happy the US military put him out of power. I'd also be happy if a piano had fallen on him. It's not hard to understand. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2003 : 17:30:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
WindupAtheist:
All nations act in their own self-interest to the best of their ability, it's just a matter of how much of a mess they make in the process. And frankly, reluctance to make a mess usually stems more from fear of other nation's reactions rather than any moral sense.
As for what other nations think, what the hell do I care? Saddam was a bastard. I'm happy the US military put him out of power. I'd also be happy if a piano had fallen on him. It's not hard to understand.
So, let me see if I have this right. A military attack on another country with the intent of removing its government is OK as long as we don't like the government or the bastard running it and we have something to gain, like the countries resources for example. We don't need any more reason than this to do such a thing. Screw any country that doesn't like it.
That should make our friends breath easier. All both of them. Every other country is potentially on our hit list based on this criteria.
This reminds me of a Randy Newman song. "Political Science." He described it as a pinheads view of the world.
No one likes us-I don't know why
We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try
But all around, even our old friends put us down
Let's drop the big one and see what happens
We give them money-but are they grateful?
No, they're spiteful and they're hateful
They don't respect us-so let's surprise them
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them
Asia's crowded and Europe's too old
Africa is far too hot
And Canada's too cold
And South America stole our name
Let's drop the big one
There'll be no one left to blame us
We'll save Australia
Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo
We'll build an All American amusement park there
They got surfin', too
Boom goes London and boom Paree
More room for you and more room for me
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town
Oh, how peaceful it will be
We'll set everybody free
You'll wear a Japanese kimono
And there'll be Italian shoes for me
They all hate us anyhow
So let's drop the big one now
Let's drop the big one now |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
WindupAtheist
New Member
41 Posts |
Posted - 05/23/2003 : 22:42:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So, let me see if I have this right. A military attack on another country with the intent of removing its government is OK as long as we don't like the government or the bastard running it and we have something to gain, like the countries resources for example.
Depends. Is the government in question disliked because of it's poor taste in beer, or because it chops the heads off dissenters? Quit dancing around acting aghast and tell me why I should feel bad about overthrowing one that does the latter. And don't even think of flirting with the strawman concept that the US is just puming out Iraq's oil and shipping it back to Texas for free.
quote:
We don't need any more reason than this to do such a thing. Screw any country that doesn't like it.
Unless said country is capable of bringing about negative results that outweigh the positive... Yeah, basically. Screw them. If country A has dealings with country B, why is it obligated to care what country C thinks, if C isn't likely to have any real effect on the situation anyway? The height of such idiocy was the US having to humor Angola's position within the UN. Screw what Angola thinks of our policy.
quote:
That should make our friends breath easier.
Incidentally, I've come to view America's being generally disliked as having been more or less inevitable since WW2, and only delayed by the Cold War. Nobody likes the guy with the most money and guns, at least not when they no longer need him to counterbalance the Soviets.
quote:
All both of them. Every other country is potentially on our hit list based on this criteria.
Yes, anyone is a potential enemy. (Welcome to reality!) So long as a given country doesn't behave too monstrously, however, there's no need for it to become an actual enemy in my book.
Enlightened self-interest. If a course of action allows you to serve both humanitarian and strategic interests, why not pursue it? Poltical fallout is only meaningful as far as it affects strategic interests. I have no particular moral concern with what the average Latvian (Angolan, Frenchman, what have you) thinks of US policy. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 05/24/2003 : 13:01:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Yes, anyone is a potential enemy. (Welcome to reality!) So long as a given country doesn't behave too monstrously, however, there's no need for it to become an actual enemy in my book.
Well, lets hope they consult with you first before deciding who is an enemy....
quote:
Enlightened self-interest. If a course of action allows you to serve both humanitarian and strategic interests, why not pursue it? Poltical fallout is only meaningful as far as it affects strategic interests. I have no particular moral concern with what the average Latvian (Angolan, Frenchman, what have you) thinks of US policy.
Thing is, I don't believe the way we went about this was in our self interest. Not if you consider our long term goals. For example, Iranian moderates were gaining popularity in that country. A moderate and more secular government in Iran would have been good for us for many reasons. Our state department had earned with them a level of trust. Well, that's out the window now. We have only managed to strengthened the voice of an anti American theocracy by doing exactly what they fear. So, in Iran, we have short circuited all gains made.
All over the world we are seen as an aggressor nation. Not as the savior of the poor and downtrodden, but a nation who would attempt to force a world into compliance with our goals. No big deal? Is it no big deal if we stand alone? A quick look at history will show you what happens to countries that take that sort of position. You say the other countries don't matter. It will be exactly those countries who will band together and take us down if they perceive us as a threat to their own self interest. Like it or not, we live in a world of many countries. And their opinions matter.
Pax Americana is imperialism. It is what drives our foreign policy now. The war on terror was a handy way for those who believe that this is the way to go to make it so. So much for all the work the State Department has done to cultivate friendships, or at least a grudging trust in our intentions. One state department official summed it up by saying that the only way he can reconcile what is going on and go to work each day is to think of this as a military coup. Other diplomats have simply quit. The state department has been marginalized by this administration to the point that all they can do now is damage control. Is that in our self interest?
Oil? I suppose it's only a coincidence that most of the presidents men are tied to oil interests in one way or another. The real strawman is that we went to free a nation of a tyrannical dictator. Our stated goal was to remove Saddams ability to use WMD. When they weren't found, we simply changed the spin. We know now that lies were told about the WMDs. Fabrications to justify this war. Sure, we thought that we would find something but we were going no matter what our intelligence reported. In fact, before we went intelligence said that we had over estimated the threat of WMDs.
Saddam was a bad guy. No one is arguing that. But there had to be a better way of removing him from power. One that wouldn't alienate the rest of the world. I know you don't care what the world thinks but our standing does matter whether you like it or not. No one likes to be told what to do. If you don't believe me ask Turkey. Allies who we decided to strong arm. Their reaction was to tell us to fuck off. That hurt us.
I do not believe that the goals of the neo conservatives vision of a Pax Americana will serve this countries long term interests. But right now, they are calling the shots.
Another thing I find disturbing is how many people in this country simply except whatever lies our leaders may have told to get us into this war while simultaneously disregarding constitutional rights to privacy and due process. It seems to me that any freedom lost to protect our way of life is an attack on our way of life.
And guess what Windup, Im happy that the Iraqi people are rid of Saddam. I also would have been happy if a piano had dropped on his head. But I still fear for the future if the Iraqi people, and I fear for our future too. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
WindupAtheist
New Member
41 Posts |
Posted - 05/24/2003 : 18:02:30 [Permalink]
|
Ah, a well-reasoned and logical reply. This should be fun.
quote:
Well, lets hope they consult with you first before deciding who is an enemy....
Naturally they ought to (hehe), but so far their selection of enemies has more or less met my approval. If they pick one who doesn't, you'll hear me bitching.
quote:
We have only managed to strengthened the voice of an anti American theocracy by doing exactly what they fear. So, in Iran, we have short circuited all gains made.
A valid point. However, if we are able to buy oil from a reasonable Iraqi government, we will have defused the so-called Saudi Oil Bomb. That alone will make our future dealings in the Middle East less complicated. Also, we've locked China out of ever getting it's hands on that oil in the forseeable future, and that's a good thing. In the long-term, China is the real threat. (They play at being reasonable these days, but they're still a nuclear-armed communist regime that thinks it's okay to run over student protesters with tanks.)
And I know this sounds really cowboy, but what the hell... Once in a while it might not hurt to show the world that we're not too fat and self-absorbed to cross the ocean and slap someone around. I mean, it's not like we do it all the time. A fight in Afghanistan (that they started) and a couple fights with Iraq are basically all the official major fighting we've done since Vietnam.
quote:
All over the world we are seen as an aggressor nation. Not as the savior of the poor and downtrodden, but a nation who would attempt to force a world into compliance with our goals. No big deal? Is it no big deal if we stand alone?
The rest of the world needs to brush up on it's history then. No nation of our relative power has ever been as benevolent as we are on the whole. I mean, we may have nuked Japan and flattened Germany, but we didn't gleefully plunder them empty or declare them states, you know?
quote:
You say the other countries don't matter. It will be exactly those countries who will band together and take us down if they perceive us as a threat to their own self interest. Like it or not, we live in a world of many countries. And their opinions matter.
You don't go out of your way to antagonize them, but you don't let them dictate to you either. Remember, they're all playing the same game we are. The bottom line is that, one way or another, it serves (almost) everyone's interest to see the guy in the lead brought down a peg or two. The only problem is that pissing us off can bring negative consequences of it's own. (Those interests and consequences may be political, financial, or military, depending on who we're dealing with.)
quote:
The state department has been marginalized by this administration to the point that all they can do now is damage control. Is that in our self interests?
Hey, I'm not defending every political move this administration makes. I'm just saying this:
Bush thinks "Hey, let's go free up some oil! Oh yeah, and smash a prick dictator while we're at it, I guess."
I think "Let's go kick the ass of that guy who butchers people! Oh yeah, and oil isn't bad either."
Either way, both are accomplished. I figure that's about as good as I'm going to get it in the fucked-up world of international politics. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 05/25/2003 : 09:42:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
However, if we are able to buy oil from a reasonable Iraqi government, we will have defused the so-called Saudi Oil Bomb. That alone will make our future dealings in the Middle East less complicated. Also, we've locked China out of ever getting it's hands on that oil in the forseeable future, and that's a good thing. In the long-term, China is the real threat.
quote:
No nation of our relative power has ever been as benevolent as we are on the whole. I mean, we may have nuked Japan and flattened Germany, but we didn't gleefully plunder them empty or declare them states, you know?
So, just how are we to assure ourselves a "reasonable Iraqi government" without either occupying that country indefinitly (something our leaders say we have no intention of doing) or allowing them self rule only if it favors our interests? Doesn't that mean limited self rule? Even if we could assure a democracy there they are 61% Shiite. Two good possibilities is they get a theocracy or they get a theocratic democracy. Civil war is a real possibility. Iranian influence is doubtless. There is no way to guarantee that they will act the way we want them to act. Does our benevolence end here? I do not understand your confidence in the outcome of this thing once it all plays out.
quote:
And I know this sounds really cowboy, but what the hell... Once in a while it might not hurt to show the world that we're not too fat and self-absorbed to cross the ocean and slap someone around. I mean, it's not like we do it all the time.
Your right. It sounds really cowboy. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Cold in here
New Member
Canada
48 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2003 : 09:33:38 [Permalink]
|
| The United States having set up "temporary government" has proved ugly enough in the Iraqi eyes. I can only imagine the tension existing within Iraq, never mind the surrounding area. The chances of this turning out to be anything but a short-term fix for the American economy are slim-to-none, and even then there are handfuls of extremely angry people ready to counter-strike. I would have been inclined to let diplomacy play its hand, but that wouldn't be quick enough. Anyone else notice how eager Bush & Blair were? Why I wonder? |
Toronto is the capital of Canada, and I live in a giant igloo. Blubber anyone? |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2003 : 13:23:11 [Permalink]
|
Here it is. Is this a fellow poster?
http://www.peterwerbe.com/protestormoron.jpg
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
The past dozen years have been a campaign of terror against the people of Iraq and this was just another chapter.
Nice picture of a pro-war demonstrator at http://www.mikemalloy.com
Not any more.
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
WindupAtheist
New Member
41 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2003 : 18:36:12 [Permalink]
|
So long as any new Iraqi regime doesn't cut out tongues, it's an improvement from a humanitarian perspective. So long as it sells oil, it's an improvement from an economic/strategic perspective. Hey, they'll need to sell to SOMEONE, and we're the biggest market. Even if they sold to everyone but us (unlikely) the increased world supply would mean lower prices overall.
Basically I think we should clean up the mess, withdraw, and let them do what they want. Their voting in a theocracy would be bad, but them's the breaks if you're not there as a conqueror. The only "leaning on them" we should do is to make sure the new government isn't inhumane to it's people. This is the part Bush & friends are likely to fuck up. |
|
|
|
Cold in here
New Member
Canada
48 Posts |
Posted - 05/27/2003 : 18:52:15 [Permalink]
|
| I hate to break it to you Windup, but the United States is scarcly the biggest market. Iraqi oil has been making plenty of money upto now, and that was part of the problem. As for the humanitarian aspects: I still stand with saying that the UN should have dealt with the situation as it was doing. There was no call for an invasion, and that's what this was. You may call it a "liberation" but when it boils down to it, control of the oil was all Bush wanted. Now he's got it, even though he's already moving on with the plans to drill in Alaska, which will completely devastate Canadian wildlife. I wouldn't spend so much time supporting the horrors of war if I were you. Out of curiosty, are you aware of how many allied troops and civilians were killed by the American military in Iraq? |
Toronto is the capital of Canada, and I live in a giant igloo. Blubber anyone? |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
