By chance my sister had left MTV on when I arrived in the living room in the afternoon today, and I found that they were doing a teen-forum with Tony Blair in Britain (I presume this because they all had british accents). Anyhoo, some of the questions the kids asked were good, others had little pertinence, and Tony actually put on a good show of being an intelligent guy. He seemed very nice.

However, it was also obvious that he had been briefed quite thoroughly before coming on. He had an answer for everything. It seemed like the anti-war people could do nothing to stop him. Then, for a brief moment, an Iraqi, I think, mentioned that the US and Britain had sold Iraq weapons, that the CIA had put Saddam in power, etc etc, and I was overjoyed! Finally someone was making the argument that I would have made! Tony said that these claims had been "greatly exagerated" but did not deny them in the least. They sort-of rushed the question, so I doubt that it was noticed by many people.

But that fellow mentioned what no other news source on TV that I'm aware of mentioned. He said that we put Saddam in power, and that we supported him with weapons, money etc. He even skirted the idea that Saddam got all of his weapons that we are trying to destroy from us or from Britain. Oh, if he had gone deeper, if the guy had had more time.

I saw Tony Blair admit to his country's wrongdoings. I swear, if people knew that Saddam is there because of us, that everyone in Iraq who died through torture or poisoning died because of us then there would be no question. Don't go to war abroad, go to war internally.

As an American, I am envious of the relative frankness of government in the UK. Were we more open here, Bush would already be hanging by a political thread.

But that fellow mentioned what no other news source on TV that I'm aware of mentioned. He said that we put Saddam in power, and that we supported him with weapons, money etc. He even skirted the idea that Saddam got all of his weapons that we are trying to destroy from us or from Britain. Oh, if he had gone deeper, if the guy had had more time.I'm so ashamed to admit that I know this, but Oprah has covered it too. I got fixated on an interview with Dan Rather as the subject. Oprah happened to be the host. The background piece she ran between segments covered the whole detail, and even shows Rumsfeld being chummy with Hussein. That picture got an alarmed murmur; people in this country really don't know ....

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

What I'm ashamed is of how we constantly do the wrong thing, and never admit up to it/try to learn and use it as a source of reason not to screw up again.

It was wrong to ever be friends with Iraq the way American's ever were. He should have admitted that yes, they did make the mistake, that it was a poor judgement call. Blair should have said, IMO, that although it was a mistake, we should learn from it to prevent future damages like an upcoming war, which although necessary, would have otherwise been uneccessary. It got out of hand, and that's why we have to take care of the present problems like N. Korea, Iraq etc. before they get out of hand.

I don't really agree with everything Blair says, but he is a good, intelligent leader who can speak well.

If we put saddam in lets take him out for all the things he did in our name.

Let's use biblical logical...

We created him, we'll destroy him.

Originally posted by Elbaz
What I'm ashamed is of how we constantly do the wrong thing, and never admit up to it/try to learn and use it as a source of reason not to screw up again.

It was wrong to ever be friends with Iraq the way American's ever were. He should have admitted that yes, they did make the mistake, that it was a poor judgement call. Blair should have said, IMO, that although it was a mistake, we should learn from it to prevent future damages like an upcoming war, which although necessary, would have otherwise been uneccessary. It got out of hand, and that's why we have to take care of the present problems like N. Korea, Iraq etc. before they get out of hand.

I don't really agree with everything Blair says, but he is a good, intelligent leader who can speak well.

There are no screw ups or mistakes. There are no friends. A nation makes decisions based solely on increasing or at least preserving POWER. This is about going after a bigger piece of the world pie. If (or rather when) a powerful empire gets too cocky and starts bullying (or makes bullying evident by going against international opinion), it will inevitably be defeated by it’s increasing number of enemies.
At that time, it made sense to arm Iraq and make Sadam powerful. It also made sense to train Osama to fight the Soviets. America (and its allies) benefited greatly from these decisions. It now makes sense to invade Iraq. Although some of us think that the price is too high – The empire will engage the bullying phase and the repercussions will be disasterous.

The price will be too high, because credibility is an ever-increasing component of power, as information emerges into geopolitics as we have never witnessed before.

Hype,
this is irrelevant if your perspective is self defense.

If we get spread too thin militarily, economically, politically, and continue a cycle of overreaction, and the outside world sees through us, our self-defense will be compromised.

Yes we made a mistake but we certainly didnt learn anything it seems.
Not only are we and especially the US still sponsoring militias all over the world, Columbia, Afghanistan, I'll leave the Palestine/Isreal argument to the relevent thread.

Even now whilst the fact the US and UK have special forces in Iraq is an open secret its also alleged that they are engaged in rounding up support from Local millitas for the upcoming war.

Originally posted by shadows
If we put saddam in lets take him out for all the things he did in our name.

I'm rather surprised that they didn't use this as an argument,...maby it's the last resort.

I can easely imagine Bush saying: "We where wrong, look at what he did in OUR name, for crying out loud,.....Let's oust him!"

But there's the pitfall: You have to respect a country's souverenity afterall,...

I think, If you look closer to all the tiranic regimes, you will find that either they are installed by the us, or and there's proof enough for it: Cia's doing some assasination of current regime, in order to install another.

(I'm just to lazy to post a link or any argument right away)

also prety telling.
We have planes attacking targets in Iraq in the No fly zone and beyond (That wasn't sanctioned by the UN, it was set up by the US, UK and France).
Our planes are "Allegedly" shot at quite regulary there.
Why don't they use that, we are being attacked, tally ho to war!
Because they probably know what they are doing is blatantly in the Face of the UN Charter and Illegal despite their pretence its to protect the Kurds.

Originally posted by Psycho-Cannon
Yes we made a mistake but we certainly didnt learn anything it seems.
Not only are we and especially the US still sponsoring militias all over the world, Columbia, Afghanistan, I'll leave the Palestine/Isreal argument to the relevent thread.

Even now whilst the fact the US and UK have special forces in Iraq is an open secret its also alleged that they are engaged in rounding up support from Local millitas for the upcoming war.

like what happend in afganistan.

do you know what just occured to me, whilst remembering how often these allied guerila forces where shot at by american and british forces, i thought, as long as the iraq'is dont dress in american or british uniforms thay might well survive and win this war!?...

Why don't they use that, we are being attacked, tally ho to war!


Nah, it's just that there would have to be an aircraft that has been downed by Iraqi anti-aircraft guns,....

The fact is: the're so lousy aimsmen, they always fire upon airplanes but never hit one!,....:p

the americans should fly a drone over iraq and let it get shot down and claim that an american had died......thus resulting in a really good reason to kill 6000 iraq's.

I would say but it wouldnt hold water for long no matter how much they glossed over it..but then again it would be more effective then 90% of most of the BS they pump out so what the hell, one more log on the fire.

Originally posted by Maveric
like what happend in afganistan.

do you know what just occured to me, whilst remembering how often these allied guerila forces where shot at by american and british forces, i thought, as long as the iraq'is dont dress in american or british uniforms thay might well survive and win this war!?...

ROFL exactly, they still havent apologised to the Northern alliance (Though they are scum in the majority imo) - For the several instances one of which lead to the General...i will look up which, being attacked, 4 of his men killed in a suprise raid, 2 more after they were arrested due to "Suspicious circumstances" and the rest tortured and Held.
Now released no apology not even a "we made a mistake now f00k off".

But then again even the British being in front of the American forces (Metro - 07-03-02 i think) will be the first to take Friendly fire casualties if history persists.
we never learn, in every major war the Americans go on about how powerfuyl they are but in the tradition of bullies they are clumsy and careless, even callous and indiscriminent with it, this always results in more ff than any other country.
In most of the major wars the US inflicted more casualties on us as allies than the enemy did.

lol, you hit the nail on the head with 'careless' bit....too ready and eager to get in there first, always the case though isnt it, and its pointless me saying 'maybe they will take their time this time' because they wont, and i can put a bet on it that the first allied casualtys will be ff! its almost certain.

When i saw the American plan on a mass airstrike i cringed because i know how the american air raids always go astray but get smeared all over the press as clinical "Ad nauseum".
Then i saw we were sending in our boys not only with crap equipment, the very first images had them in forest camo ffs, now they have Desert gear but still forest dpm helms *Sighs, making your head stand out green is "NOT" a good idea...* and then to say we were in the front lines while the US bombed away..i was smacking my head on a wall...we dont learn..we dont learn...we dont learn...

*Sighs, making your head stand out green is "NOT" a good idea...*

ROLF kinda reminds me of dads army, except in iraq...pretty inadequate really.loL

Ye its a shambles.
The first squads out there.
No radio, no camp, no food, just dumped in the middle of the desert in Forest Camo with gas masks out of date that are no good against Checmical attacks let alone the left over DU shite from Gulf War 1.
The few Chemical suits they had were old and odd fitting or torn.

I hate to admit it but if the US wasn't there our boys would of starved to death and without borrowed US Tents, frozen to death, and thats beyond embarsasing thats bloddy criminal.

and with everyone talking about possible callups if it got so bad (unlikly i know, but i wont rule it out) im thinking 'how the hell are they going to handle that, giving the recruits pitch forks and kitchen knives i supose!?'

Ye i was looking at joining the RAF, still am tbh, wanted to when i was a kid but i've just never done it.
My cousins in Intel so i dont know what he does lol, but he's been talking to mre recently and re-sparking my interest but it seems a bad time to go lol.
Why sign up for a war you don't belive in..but those already in can't get out...its mad.

Good thing i got into Airsoft just before i singed off into the TA lol or i would be on the list now.

Is there really going to be conscription from the general populous? i heard that on the radio or something this morning but i can't see that happening, the governments unpopular enough as it is without trying something stupid like that!
Didn't even know they still did it....

Man, I just saw this silly movie on tv:
"the second civil war" It's hilarious,..;but somewhere's a voice in my head, telling me that facts are reaaaally stranger then fiction!

Yup, Directors trying to recreate the Stupidity and falability of our leaders are never going to quite match the real thing.

DEAR GOD POLLUX! We have had this conversation before! Let's examine this when I have more time, Im in class right now so I cant go into detail right now. But let's say this for the time being, it happend 20 years ago. I dont bring up the fact that Germany had that whole Hitler thing, I definently dont use it against them. And I dont use the French and Spanish war against either of them.

The current incarnation of America can not be held responsible for what past leaders/governments did. Different time, different situatation. Was it stupid? Yes. But at the time it seemed like a good idea. These things happend. Geez, get over it.

Counsler, I don't doubt that the people that put Saddam into power knew that he was a bad guy at the time. Do you think they didn't notice that immediately after being placed there he declared war on Iran, and was responsible for the deaths of a million people? Plus, the same people that put him in power then are trying to kill him now--Donald Rumsfeld, for instance, as well as a slew of other shady CIA-affiliated characters I'm sure not many people have ever mentioned for security reasons.

I can easely imagine Bush saying: "We where wrong, look at what he did in OUR name, for crying out loud,.....Let's oust him!" That might be sufficient to win the world's support. People around the world had to suppress a certain relief after WTC 9/11. While tragic, one thing that the world was sure of was that the US was wide awake now and onboard to combat terrorism. Now they're just a little hesitant about our method and demeanor. A skosh of honesty from time to time would suffice for many.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

You know, before Tony Blair started kissing Bush's ass, I kind of liked him. He seemed to be doing cool things, at least from what I saw on the tele. Bear in mind that this was before 2000, and I would have been 13 or under, and not as "politically aware" as I am now. So correct me if you think me incorrect:cool:

But it was too obvious that the man was lying. He had been prepped rigorously with false answers and clever lies. When he found himself at a loss for explanation, when I think a hot swedish chick said that there was a report that 500,000 Iraqis would die in the conflict (if someone is aware of this report, from the UN I think, please post a link to it:)) he merely said that he had no clue of its existence. I don't think he made a good enough argument for either the Brits or the Yanks.

But I have to admit that he looks like a really nice guy.

Bear in mind that this was before 2000, and I would have been 13 or under, and not as "politically aware" as I am now. So correct me if you think me incorrectWhile a Thatcher-Reagan analogy isn't quite appropriate, Blair came into office under minor controversy that left him labeled as a British Clinton. You're more correct than you're aware.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

I saw Tony Blair admit to his country's wrongdoings. I swear, if people knew that Saddam is there because of us, that everyone in Iraq who died through torture or poisoning died because of us then there would be no question. Don't go to war abroad, go to war internally.

In American law, the seller of the gun is almost always not criminally liable for murder. Remember one of the basic rules of international politics: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Alliances exist until they are no longer politically tenable.

In American law, the seller of the gun is almost always not criminally liable for murder.Of course, George H.W. "Poppy" Bush (41) also claimed to be out of the loop in Iran-Contra. I bring this up because the arms sales to Iran were in violation of law, which law is allegedly in place for good reason. Likewise, the only reason selling arms and biolgical material to Saddam Hussein was legal was because Hussein was useful to the US and thus not labeled as an enemy or terrorist state the way Iran was.

In any case, if Charles Manson someday earns parole, and shows up in, say, your gun store to buy a piece, would you sell it to him? Don't let violations of law concern you here, as the government breaks its own laws regularly. I mean, come on--when you heard about the mass murder the next week and it was Manson with the gun you sold him, would you really be surprised?

In American law, the seller of the gun is obliged to be somewhat conscious of whom he is selling a gun to.Alliances exist until they are no longer politically tenable.Nonetheless, a ratings game seems a silly reason for war, don't you think?

What was politically tenable about Saddam Hussein's crimes against humanity while the US was funding him? Mere convenience?

The war pigs must find a better way. This mess shouldn't even exist to clean up in the first place.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Tiassa, I've got a few words for you:

Iran
20
Years
Ago
Cold War
Communism

And a saying: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Of course, George H.W. "Poppy" Bush (41) also claimed to be out of the loop in Iran-Contra. I bring this up because the arms sales to Iran were in violation of law, which law is allegedly in place for good reason. Likewise, the only reason selling arms and biolgical material to Saddam Hussein was legal was because Hussein was useful to the US and thus not labeled as an enemy or terrorist state the way Iran was

This is highly blown out of proportion. The biological "sales" as you call them, were actually GIVEN, to the University of Baghdad. The selling of arms is not illegal, like you said, you can sell a gun to anyone. And I'll say this again: The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

The US knew at the time, when it was putting Saddam into power, when it was giving him weapons, when it was giving him the ability to make war upon whomever he wished, they knew at the time that he was a crazy bad guy. We did have a responsibility to not arm that man. We did have a responsibility to put someone in power who was more noble and good, and who was not foul and evil. If we had not put him there, the Iran-Iraq war would not have happened, the Kurds would not have been massacred, and what have you. No matter how you put it, there is a connection, and the connection always leads back to the US, past or present. We are at fault. We are the policemen of the world. But, when we had the chance to create a stable nation out of where civilization was born, we instead put a madman at the helm for short term profit, at the expense of easily one and a half million people. And we still won, because the Iraqis blame Saddam and not Rumsfeld (or the CIA) for those deaths. Think of how many terrorists could have been born out of those bloodbaths. Think of how many of them have already made the connection.

Tony, as I also recall, said that the reason terrorists attack the freedom loving peoples of the world is because they envy us, and are jealous--to slip into my Tolkienite costume, I would make the comparison between Morgoth and the Arda (I think). The creation myth in the Silmarillion, which is fairly obviously based on the bible, describes the creation of the evil in the world that Iluvatar, the supreme deity, creates. He said that one of the angels he made became jealous of his creations, and sought to destroy them.

This is not the case with terrorists. Some of them I think just want a job because of the poor economy in "that part of the world," others because people they knew and loved had been mutilated beyond recognition by warheads with the american flag pasted on them. They don't burn the flag because of jealousy, they burn it because, for the moment, it is the only way to get back at those responsible for taking their lives away.

and some will blow you away for nothing special at all,....

:)

The US knew at the time, when it was putting Saddam into power, when it was giving him weapons, when it was giving him the ability to make war upon whomever he wished, they knew at the time that he was a crazy bad guy. We did have a responsibility to not arm that man.

Please explain to me how the US knew that Saddam would turn weapons on us?

We did have a responsibility to put someone in power who was more noble and good, and who was not foul and evil. If we had not put him there, the Iran-Iraq war would not have happened, the Kurds would not have been massacred, and what have you.

Good and noble? Wait, wait, wait, hold the phone. Your looking for someone who is just a "Nice guy"? Sorry Pollux, but Political leaders have to be tough, they can't be all nice and crap. Saddam probably looked good to, considering some of the choices the Gov had at the time.

[/quote] No matter how you put it, there is a connection, [/quote]

Im not arguing that.

We are at fault. We are the policemen of the world.
Yes this is part our fault. Somebodys gotta be the cop.

wen we had the chance to create a stable nation out of where civilization was born, we instead put a madman at the helm for short term profit, at the expense of easily one and a half million people. And we still won, because the Iraqis blame Saddam and not Rumsfeld (or the CIA) for those deaths. Think of how many terrorists could have been born out of those bloodbaths. Think of how many of them have already made the connection. [/quote

Pollux, please, again, explain to me how we knew that Saddam would kill all those people. How we knew that he was insane? And that he would turn on us? I dont think Washington has psychics.

[quote] not the case with terrorists. Some of them I think just want a job because of the poor economy in "that part of the world," others because people they knew and loved had been mutilated beyond recognition by warheads with the american flag pasted on them.

Some of them just want a job!? WTF kind of job is that? Also, the United States never put people into cars and told them to drive them into crowded areas so that they can blow up! Oh wait! Thats right, its part our fault because we made the cars that they blow up.

because of jealousy, they burn it because, for the moment, it is the only way to get back at those responsible for taking their lives away.

Actually there retards. They buy an america flag to burn it? No. They need someone to hate and blame. Thats us. When your on top, people are jealous, they do hate you for no reason. Take a look at your school pollux, the popular girl at my school, everyone hated her! Yet everyone sucked up to her and no one had a reason to hate her, they just hated her because everyone knew who she was.

Also, just because he got some of the weapons from us, doesn't stop the fact that he's killed, he's lied, and he's going to use them again and again and again.

So your practically admitting right here, right now, that Saddam has weapons (That were supplied by us, 20 years ago) and we shouldn't go to war because of it?

Please explain to me how the US knew that Saddam would turn weapons on us?

I'll get to this later, I need to find the right news sites. I'll be on in a few hours. Tiassa, if you see this, and know of some way to back it up, please help me out!

Good and noble? Wait, wait, wait, hold the phone. Your looking for someone who is just a "Nice guy"? Sorry Pollux, but Political leaders have to be tough, they can't be all nice and crap. Saddam probably looked good to, considering some of the choices the Gov had at the time.

By good and noble, I meant that he would try to feed and clothe his people, try to educate them and give them money and help out the economy and turn the place into a democracy. That is a good leader to me. There's more to it than that, but Saddam does not embody any of those qualities, yet we chose him anyway. I think that we could have found someone else on Earth, there were, I believe, 4 or so billion people around at the time, maybe less, and out of those 4 billion, I bet there were at least one or two souls willing to jumpstart an ailing nation.

Actually there retards. They buy an america flag to burn it? No. They need someone to hate and blame.

We're so involved in the negative funding of evil regimes, one way or another, that even if they don't know for sure that we're at fault, they're right anyway.

When your on top, people are jealous, they do hate you for no reason.

There are two types of ways to be on top--

Be the nice guy, help people out, stand up for people, etc etc. This type does not create jealousy, but this type is not the United States.

Be the asshole, put people down, beat the crap out of people and steal their money, sell them weapons, lie to them and befriend them for only short term profit. This is us, and doing such things creates many enemies quickly.

Also, just because he got some of the weapons from us, doesn't stop the fact that he's killed, he's lied, and he's going to use them again and again and again.

Again, he got the weapons from us and we told him what to do with them. Please read the quoted material.

Internationally, Saddam invaded Iran (with Western support), and when that war was going badly turned to chemical weapons (also with Western support).

Saddam's worst crimes, by far, have been domestic, including the use of chemical weapons against Kurds and a huge slaughter of Kurds in the late 80s, barbaric torture, and every other ugly crime you can imagine. These are at the top of the list of terrible crimes for which he is now condemned, rightly. It's useful to ask how frequently the impassioned denunciations and eloquent expressions of outrage are accompanied by three little words: "with our help."

The crimes were well known at once, but of no particular concern to the West. Saddam received some mild reprimands; harsh congressional condemnation was considered too extreme by prominent commentators. The Reaganites and Bush 1 continued to welcome the monster as an ally and valued trading partner right through his worst atrocities and well beyond. Bush authorized loan guarantees and sale of advanced technology with clear applications for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) right up to the day of the Kuwait invasion, sometimes overriding congressional efforts to prevent what he was doing. Britain was still authorizing export of military equipment and radioactive materials a few days after the invasion

Article Here (http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/12/1551023.php)

We knew what he was doing, yet we chose not to stop him. While he was committing genocide we not only ignored that he was doing so but replenished his depleted arsenal. That sounds like encouragement for mutilation to me.

Tiassa, if you see this, and know of some way to back it up, please help me out! Note to Pollux V: Don't let Counsler restate the question: The US knew at the time, when it was putting Saddam into power, when it was giving him weapons, when it was giving him the ability to make war upon whomever he wished, they knew at the time that he was a crazy bad guy. We did have a responsibility to not arm that man.

Please explain to me how the US knew that Saddam would turn weapons on us? I mean, I see nothing in the portion Counsler cited that warrants the question. There is the phrase that the US was giving Saddam the ability to make war upon whomever he wished, but that leaves me wondering why we should single out "us".

After all, if this was solely about "us" (the United States), arguments of Saddam's atrocities in his own nation and aggression against at least two of his neighbors would not be valid considerations toward the Iraqi Bush War.

Political leaders need to be smart. When Bush is finished here, he will have written an ugly final act to a ridiculous melodrama. It was not smart to stroke the Shah of Iran for oil benefits; it was selling out. It was not smart to recruit the Taliban, Osama bin Laden, and other Islamic extremists to fight the Red Menace. It was not smart, as the allegations go, to sell crack in black neighborhoods in Los Angeles and elsewhere in order to foster a law-enforcement revolution and raise funds for illegal weapons shipments to people like the Shah's replacement in Iran, Ayatollah Khomeni. Likewise, it was not smart to sell weapons to Iraq:Rumsfeld?s December 19-20, 1983 visit to Baghdad made him the highest-ranking US official to visit Iraq in 6 years .... Rumsfeld later told The New York Times. "It struck us as useful to have a relationship, given that we were interested in solving the Mideast problems."

.... on January 1, 1984, The Washington Post reported that the United States ?in a shift in policy, has informed friendly Persian Gulf nations that the defeat of Iraq in the 3-year-old war with Iran would be ?contrary to U.S. interests? and has made several moves to prevent that result.? ....

.... Rumsfeld was back in Baghdad for meetings with then-Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz. On the day of his visit, March 24th, UPI reported from the United Nations: ?Mustard gas laced with a nerve agent has been used on Iranian soldiers in the 43-month Persian Gulf War between Iran and Iraq, a team of U.N. experts has concluded. ....

....Most glaring is that Donald Rumsfeld was in Iraq as the 1984 UN report was issued and said nothing about the allegations of chemical weapons use, despite State Department ?evidence" ... on March 29, 1984, ?American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with relations between Iraq and the United States and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been restored in all but name.?

A month and a half later, in May 1984, Donald Rumsfeld resigned. In November of that year, full diplomatic relations between Iraq and the US were fully restored ... the Chicago Tribune Magazine listed among Rumsfeld?s achievements helping to ?reopen U.S. relations with Iraq.? The Tribune failed to mention that this help came at a time when, according to the US State Department, Iraq was actively using chemical weapons. (The Saddam in Rumsfeld's Closet (http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0802-01.htm))Again, I'm unsure of what the real distinction is between knowing Saddam would turn his weapons against the US and knowing that he did turn his weapons (even those of mass destruction) onto others.

Certes, a threat to the nation directly is of higher priority to Americans than unrest in East Timor. Nonetheless, one must wonder why Iraq had to be "removed" from the list of terrorist sponsors: Throughout the period that Rumsfeld was Reagan?s Middle East envoy, Iraq was frantically purchasing hardware from American firms, empowered by the White House to sell. The buying frenzy began immediately after Iraq was removed from the list of alleged sponsors of terrorism in 1982.I mean, we even helped the Iraqis write cover stories: In 1984, according to The LA Times, the State Department?in the name of ?increased American penetration of the extremely competitive civilian aircraft market??pushed through the sale of 45 Bell 214ST helicopters to Iraq. The helicopters, worth some $200 million, were originally designed for military purposes. The New York Times later reported that Saddam ?transferred many, if not all [of these helicopters] to his military.?So my questions become:

(1) Why was Iraq taken off the list of terror sponsors? Because it no longer sponsored terror or because it was a convenient ally after a dictator the US supported in exchange for favorable petrol prices was toppled for his brutality?

(2) So--amid reports of Iraqi atrocities against Iranians (use of WMD), we sell helicopters designed for a military purpose to a former terrorist sponsor while pretending to "penetrate" the "extremely competitive civilian" market .... Was anyone surprised when these aircraft were put to military use?In 1988, Saddam?s forces attacked Kurdish civilians with poisonous gas from Iraqi helicopters and planes. U.S. intelligence sources told The LA Times in 1991, they ?believe that the American-built helicopters were among those dropping the deadly bombs.?

In response to the gassing, sweeping sanctions were unanimously passed by the US Senate that would have denied Iraq access to most US technology. The measure was killed by the White House. You know ... pacifists who wondered about our support for Saddam Hussein at the time were told they were disregarding issues vital to national security and the future safety of Americans. Ironic, eh?

An interesting link on Saddam Hussein (Houghton-Mifflin) (http://college.hmco.com/currentconflict/instructors/history/hussein.html)The United States was understandably concerned about the Islamic radicals who had taken power in Iran in 1979 after overthrowing the Shah's regime, long an American political and military ally in the region. Prior to the war with Iran, the US State Department had placed Iraq on its list of countries supporting terrorism, but removed it in 1982. Diplomatic relations were restored in 1984. The United States also encouraged its European allies to export arms to Iraq. In 1985 the U.S. - Iraq Business Forum was organized to promote trade between the two countries.I mean, here's a guy using Mustard Gas and nerve agents in a war, and the US is pushing Eurpoean allies to export weapons to Iraq?

And what did the US think of Iraqi use of weapons of mass destruction?DIA officers undertook a tour of inspection of the Fao peninsula after Iraqi forces successfully re-took it, and they reported to their superiors on Iraq?s extensive use of chemical weapons, but their superiors were not interested. Col. Walter P. Lang, senior DIA officer at the time, says that ?The use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern?. The DIA, he claimed, ?would have never accepted the use of chemical weapons against civilians, but the use against military objectives was seen as inevitable in the Iraqi struggle for survival.? (The Iran-Iraq War: Serving American Interests (http://www.rupe-india.org/34/iran.html))Furthermore, citing Simpson and Rangwala's Labour Against the War Counter-Dossier (Sept., 2002), the article notes: The Anfal campaign was carried out with the acquiescence of the West. Rather than condemn the massacres of Kurds, the US escalated its support for Iraq. It joined in Iraq?s attacks on Iranian facilities, blowing up two Iranian oil rigs and destroying an Iranian frigate a month after the Halabja attack. Within two months, senior US officials were encouraging corporate coordination through an Iraqi state-sponsored forum. The US administration opposed, and eventually blocked, a US Senate bill that cut off loans to Iraq. The US approved exports to Iraq of items with dual civilian and military use at double the rate in the aftermath of Halabja as it did before 1988. Iraqi written guarantees about civilian use were accepted by the US commerce department, which did not request licenses and reviews (as it did for many other countries). The Bush Administration approved $695,000 worth of advanced data transmission devices the day before Iraq invaded Kuwait.One of the things that I do in order to take mercy on my conscience is to generally stick with generalizations. I've known for years that this is approximately the story of American involvement in Iraq, but I thank those who don't believe it because it's caused me to go out and look up some of the details I had hitherto elected to disregard. All this process does is stoke the pacifist fires and further convince me that:

(A) This is our mess to clean up
(B) We must find a better way
(C) The way of the gun has failed this far; we might seek a new hypothesis

Some random links I found along the way:

- An Unused American Tactic: Trying Saddam for War Crimes (Christian Science Monitor, 1998) (http://csmweb2.emcweb.com/durable/1998/02/20/intl/intl.4.html)
- Saddam Hussein: Winner of the Gulf War (The Wisdom Fund) (http://www.twf.org/News/Y2001/0123-Saddam.html)
- How (the) West helped Saddam (http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/features98/saddam.htm)
- Support for Dictators (Better World link list) (http://www.betterworldlinks.org/book73e.htm)

A last note: If I'm unsure why the war party has any doubts about American support for bloodthirsty freaks, then I'm doubly confused at the fact that it's a consistent habit:

- CIA Support for Bin Laden: Who's Responsible? (http://www.stopworldwar3.com/features/wright919.shtml)
- The creation called Osama (http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/2001/09/27/stories/05272524.htm)

At any rate, that's my two cents. By what myopia did the US not expect arms sales to Iraq to be problematic in the future?

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Well thaaaank you, tiassa.:):D

Counsler, I'd be interested to see your response. Please, please don't think of me as an asshole when I say this, I value being friends with you, but it takes a great person to admit that he is wrong in an ongoing debate such as this. I think Tiassa's post just grounded the glass that blurred perception into dust.

Pollux, that is the most arrogant thing that you have ever said to me. I *never* said that I was right. However, your going to jump onto the conclusion that your right and Im wrong? That's arrogance right there.

Tiassa posts did little to nothing for me. It was just a bunch of talk that led up to nothing. Tiassa, tip for you. Don't examine one little line of my post that much. You read way to much into that and wasted way to much time on it. Just jump straight to the point.

Am I mad right now? Yes. I just got off of work and Im being told that my opinion is wrong, and your assuming that I think that Im right. No where in my post did I say; "IM RIGHT YOUR WRONG AHAHAHAHAH!" Never. Oh, and I don't think that your an asshole, Pollux.

Im going to say this again, except slower! Diiiiiifffffeeeerrreeennnttt eeeeerrrrrraaaa,,,, dddiiifffeeerrreeennnttt situation.

Also again: In American criminal law, the seller of the gun is almost always not criminally liable for murder. Remember one of the basic rules of international politics: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Alliances exist until they are no longer politically tenable.

Mustard gas is a different story. If we gave Saddam mustard gas, and he uses it on children, is it our fault? No. It's not. He's the one who decided this. Now Pollux, when you say that we told Saddam what to do with the weapons, your right. We said "Use them against your enemy, gas their soldiers." We didn't say "I want you to kill a bunch of five year old kids and then cook a puppy in an oven."

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. FRIEND FRIEND FRIEND FRIEND FRIEND. NO MATTER WHAT: FRIEND.

Thank you, this debate is not over.

(A) This is our mess to clean up

If that is the case, then fine. Why don't you support the war then Tiassa? If you believe that this is our mess, then shouldn't we clean it up?

(B) We must find a better way

There is no other way. It's been six months, Saddam isnt complying now, and he doesnt plan on it in the future.

Tiassa, tip for you. Don't examine one little line of my post that much. You read way to much into that and wasted way to much time on it. Just jump straight to the point.And a tip in return: Don't expect minor but fundamental inaccuracies to be overlooked. Constantly changing the issue--in other words, avoiding the issue--is really the only way the war party can give the illusion of justification.We said "Use them against your enemy, gas their soldiers."Then Saddam's willingness to use WMD against other nations is irrelevant to the current war discussion.

See? Small, fundamental inaccuracies, tenuous logic, and so forth, break down under scrutiny. It is only by presenting issues dishonestly that the war party finds the illusion of justification.The enemy of my enemy is my friend. FRIEND FRIEND FRIEND FRIEND FRIEND. NO MATTER WHAT: FRIEND.Interesting. The Christian Broadcasting Network (http://cbn.org/SpiritualLife/understandingislam/Islam_and_the_Bible_Introduction_to_a_Series.asp), in an article on Islam and the Bible: An ancient proverb in the Arab world goes something like this: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." The article goes on to point out: In the early 1980s, the United States helped create the "religious schools" of_Islamic_extremists in Pakistan and Afghanistan, in order to counter the Soviet Union's attack on Afghanistan. These extremists were cultivated because they were such fierce fighters, as the Soviets learned. But in so doing, as a nation, we banked on the old Arab proverb. We did not realize the backside of such a proverb, in my own words: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend, until we defeat the common enemy, and our new friend becomes our new enemy." This is who Osama Bin Laden is. He, and those with him, took American money and training to drive out the Russian "infidels." Now they have built upon that training, and have formed the Al-Qaida network and other terrorist organizations to kick the American "infidels" out of their Islamic world. The enemy of our enemy has struck us with vengeance.And the author asks a vital question: How do we proceed from here as a nation, and not create such a backlash again, while we necessarily need to put an end to these terrorist cells?

Incidentally, I'm not fond of the author's speculation on that question. But it's a fair answer for someone who acknowledges theological limitations to intellect.

Or an editorial piece from Brown University anthropologist William Beeman (http://www.brown.edu/Administration/News_Bureau/Op-Eds/Beeman3.html): In U.S. rhetoric regarding the Middle East, the Taleban would seem to be strange political partners. They are a brutal fundamentalist group that has promulgated a cultural scorched-earth policy for their nation. They have committed extensively documented atrocities against their enemies and their own citizens. So why would the United States support them?

Middle Easterners easily understand the answer. The ancient proverb goes: The enemy of my enemy is my friend.What's strange about the idea to me is that the US is trying to have it both ways. To the one, it is exactly the idea that motivated us to prop up Hussein. To the other, it is exactly why we are to believe that Saddam Hussein is somehow responsible for 9/11.

However, you have at least that much in common with your enemy, Counsler:

- A desperate proverb
- Willingness to resort to violence

And that's no petty sum, either.If that is the case, then fine. Why don't you support the war then Tiassa? If you believe that this is our mess, then shouldn't we clean it up? I'm going to just pretend that in your zealous rush you overlooked the next point you cited before writing that.There is no other way. It's been six months, Saddam isnt complying now, and he doesnt plan on it in the future. Right. Saddam isn't doing what the US wants and the world settled for after the first Gulf War. And that is, by rights, something to be thankful for. His atrocious behavior is slowed, his external aggression is buried.

We used to tease Dubya about being a Daddy's boy, but it has been noted at Sciforums before that the Bush Doctrine represents a major policy shift, a change in paradigm, that Poppy certainly didn't advocate else we would have gone all the way to Baghdad the first time.

When people lament that, "There is no other way," they are merely surrendering to their own lack of innovation, persistence, or compassion. Peaceful resolutions in general have not here failed. One ill-constructed peaceful resolution failed; before that there was no peaceful resolution. And to boot, the peaceful resolution is a faux-resolution. It is a patchwork compromise designed to stop a silly war. Contain, seek disarmament, and above all else stop handing Hussein credit to spend insofar as a lack of American integrity does much to raise opposition.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

Tiassa, Im not dodging questions. Im answering as many as I can as quickly as I can. I like debating, its fun. Im in the middle of finals week at school and I dont have time to stop every five seconds and answer every question especially when I've already answered it and/or commented on it.

Was I tired when I wrote my last post? Yes, I was. Sorry if I came off a little jerky, I didnt mean it.

- A desperate proverb
- Willingness to resort to violence

Im not willing to resort to violence. As you know (If you paid attention) I was against this war. I spoke out against it in some of my classes. What made me change my mind? Heck, I think I'll make a list:

- 12 years is not enough time? How much more time do you need?

- Negotiating and Contracts require a meeting of the minds where both parties come to the table with clean hands. We cannot trust Saddam, he is a proven liar, so it is impossible to work with him.

Now, I have admitted that The United States did give Saddam weapons in the 80's. Im not denying this. It was a different era and a different situation. Here we have the chance to correct a mistake from many years ago. The 10, 20, and 30 year old mistakes don't matter, just like how we don't hold Germany's mistakes against them 60 years later. Or that whole thing where the French killed a bunch of Spanish civillians on the third of May. Or how Australia treats its immigrants. Or how the U.S.S.R. gave Castro missles.

Im not willing to resort to violence. As you know (If you paid attention) I was against this war. I spoke out against it in some of my classes. What made me change my mind? Heck, I think I'll make a list:

- 12 years is not enough time? How much more time do you need?

- Negotiating and Contracts require a meeting of the minds where both parties come to the table with clean hands. We cannot trust Saddam, he is a proven liar, so it is impossible to work with him. You're not willing to resort to violence but you changed your mind about what?

(That was rhetorical.)

You're willing to advocate a war? Then you're willing to resort to violence.

As to the two points you raised:

- Time is irrelevant when you stop and consider that the 12 years was an uneven accord resulting from the unwillingness of the US to become the world imperium. In the long run, that unwillingness will profit better, as it would here. Justice is most important, and the focus over these twelve years has been Saddam Hussein and his military machine, not the people who suffer under it. They're a nice cause to wave for the war-wagon, but if they were really important to the Americans or to the UN, we would have found a better way to go about this long ago.

- As to negotiating and contracts, the United States is a proven liar, is viewed as impossible to work with by many, and never comes to the table with clean hands. One of the hardest things to make clear to the war party is that it is absurd to hold against another what you license for yourself.

As to that last, I really don't know what the problem is, other than arrogance, greed, or a pure lack of compassion.Now, I have admitted that The United States did give Saddam weapons in the 80's. Im not denying this. It was a different era and a different situation. Here we have the chance to correct a mistake from many years ago. The 10, 20, and 30 year old mistakes don't matter, just like how we don't hold Germany's mistakes against them 60 years later. Or that whole thing where the French killed a bunch of Spanish civillians on the third of May. Or how Australia treats its immigrants. Or how the U.S.S.R. gave Castro missles.(1) So why do we worry about Saddam? Let the past be the past.
(2) Germany has shown a deviation from its 60 year-lost pattern
(3) You're also forgetting the French debacle in the Orient; you know, Vietnam?
(4) Let's invade Australia, then. During the Clinton administration, we tried to write their drug policy.
(5) Um ... who cares about Castro's missiles? We forgive these sorts of things because we do them too.
(6) The United States, unlike Germany, and like Iraq, has not shown a willing deviation from its bellicose ways.
(7) Since the war machine got us here, I'm dubious about its ability to extract us. Like I said elsewhere: The war party has blown a hole in the boat, and we're letting them patch it with explosives.
(8) Does victory come when Saddam Hussein is dead or exiled?
(9) Given that the US is taking heat internationally for the rocky situation in Afghanistan (Americans tend to believe its all roses) and has been accused of failing in its mission of state-building, it is fair enough in consideration of point 8 above to point out that while wars get rid of people we don't like, they don't bring peace.
(10) Given how much money we've spent whining about our former lap dog Hussein, I'm starting to wonder if it wouldn't have just been a good idea to pour all of that money into Iraq under a strict array of restrictions. We can still have all the warships running the embargo, but perhaps forcing an economic shakeup in Iraq can compel the people to do what they have so far failed to do: get rid of their local scoundrel. After a couple of years of watching living standards rise while the UN keeps Saddam politically bound and gagged ought to be enough to convince them to ditch Saddam. And besides, if, during that program, he loses his temper and attacks something, then you get to whack him, anyway.

Seriously--resorting to war at this point is ridicuous. It's an admission that Americans just aren't that bright. And while we've all known this for years as test scores plummet and students fail to find their own state on a map of the US, I see no reason to go out and prove it at the cost of another freaking war.

I mean, we can't even spend the petty funds allocated for an internal toppling of Saddam. While it's still warfare, it would be a better situation than an invasion. A nation's right to determine its fate is important. We have been more eager to write the fate of others than willing to invest in their opportunity to seize fate by the bollocks.

While it's a bit offensive to raise here, there's a part in Eco's Foucault's Pendulum about the difference between an idiot and a moron, which I don't recall in its entirety at present, but essentially draws the distinction of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons and doing the wrong thing for the right reasons. In addition, someone somewhere included a quaint observation about 16/64 must equal 1/4 because you can take away the sixes.

If I pick on small points, and tell you not to dodge them, it's because of ideas similar to these. I can never guarantee anyone I'm right; to wit, while I believe pacifism will lead humanity to greater progress, such a belief implies a knowledge of the purpose of life in relation to progress. So while it may be that wars are the only way to get things done, I must insist that the reasons are correct. It's a high toll to pay for foolishness or simple error. War can be proven appropriate to me, but while the view up here is stunning, what happens if the tower is made of toothpicks and rubber bands? You're showing me the view, but I have doubts about the structure. And I'm not prepared to take the flying leap just for the scenery. ;)

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

- Negotiating and Contracts require a meeting of the minds where both parties come to the table with clean hands. We cannot trust Saddam, he is a proven liar, so it is impossible to work with him.

How many US politicians do you trust?

Now, I have admitted that The United States did give Saddam weapons in the 80's. Im not denying this. It was a different era and a different situation. Here we have the chance to correct a mistake from many years ago.

How does going to war and further violence correct a mistake? Why not bring those that gave him the weapons to justice first? At least slap them on their hands, I mean, we're going to war because of them in the first place, right? You keep saying, different era, different situation. I'd like you to go into more depth on that statement. What do you mean? How are the eighties different from the zeroes? Was Saddam less crazy? Were the intentions of the United States more noble? We just wanted to capitalize upon the conflict between Iran and Iraq! They're killing each other with our weapons! That isn't wrong!

No wonder this administration has such cold feet re: UN, ICC

(1) So why do we worry about Saddam? Let the past be the past.

He's dangerous, he has oil, and we need to correct a mistake.

(2) Germany has shown a deviation from its 60 year-lost pattern

Exactly! So why do you care that 20 years ago, the US sold weapons to Saddam?

(3) You're also forgetting the French debacle in the Orient; you know, Vietnam?

Okay okay. Yeah, I forgot about that.

(4) Let's invade Australia, then. During the Clinton administration, we tried to write their drug policy.

*Blinks* Tiassa, I have seriously no idea what your talking about.

(5) Um ... who cares about Castro's missiles? We forgive these sorts of things because we do them too.

See number two.

(6) The United States, unlike Germany, and like Iraq, has not shown a willing deviation from its bellicose ways.

Which way would that be? Well, in that case the French haven't changed much either. Heck, the Russians have an ex-KGB agent in office.

(8) Does victory come when Saddam Hussein is dead or exiled?

Either one. But I feel that even after he is exiled, the Government will still be after him.

(9) Given that the US is taking heat internationally for the rocky situation in Afghanistan (Americans tend to believe its all roses) and has been accused of failing in its mission of state-building, it is fair enough in consideration of point 8 above to point out that while wars get rid of people we don't like, they don't bring peace.

Hey! Why don't those countries step in and help? The us doesnt have all the money in the world... Well, not yet.

(10) Given how much money we've spent whining about our former lap dog Hussein, I'm starting to wonder if it wouldn't have just been a good idea to pour all of that money into Iraq under a strict array of restrictions. We can still have all the warships running the embargo, but perhaps forcing an economic shakeup in Iraq can compel the people to do what they have so far failed to do: get rid of their local scoundrel.

Tiassa! I AGREE!!!

After a couple of years of watching living standards rise while the UN keeps Saddam politically bound and gagged ought to be enough to convince them to ditch Saddam. And besides, if, during that program, he loses his temper and attacks something, then you get to whack him, anyway.


That doesn't stop the fact that he's dangerous and has WMD.

How many US politicians do you trust?

Good point... Didn't I ask you that question before?

How does going to war and further violence correct a mistake? Why not bring those that gave him the weapons to justice first?

Were not only correcting a mistake, were de-arming a dangerous man. The people who gave Saddam weapons are either:

A. Dead
B. Out of Buisiness.
C. So long ago that the statue of limitations is up.
D. Different era, different situation.

I'd like you to go into more depth on that statement. What do you mean? How are the eighties different from the zeroes? Was Saddam less crazy? Were the intentions of the United States more noble? We just wanted to capitalize upon the conflict between Iran and Iraq! They're killing each other with our weapons! That isn't wrong!

Pollux, in the 1980's the United States was more worried about communism spreading, then terrorist bombing crap. At the time, America's big worry was Iran, not Iraq. The Reagan administration feared that the Iranian revolutionaries who had overthrown the shaw (and taken hostage American diplomats for 444 days in 1979) would overrun the Middle East and its vital oilfields. On the theory that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, the Reaganites were seeking to support Iraq in war against Iran.

Before the cold war, Russia was America's partner against Hitler in WWII. In the real world, as that loving saying goes, nations have no permanent friends, just permanent interests. Rumsfeld's long ago interlude with Saddam is a reminder that today's friend can be tomorrow's mortal threat.

At least you guys dont insult me.

You Stupide Americainn, i fahrt in your genehral direction:bugeye:

He's dangerous, he has oil, and we need to correct a mistake.The extent of his danger is debatable. He's a huffy child with nasty toys. But oil is the main concern. We're in Afghanistan, where there's oil, we're in Iraq, where there's oil. We're leaving Nepal--which has no oil--out of it and seeking another way to resolve a more immediate difficulty with North Korea. I'd say the primary motive is petrol-related.

In the meantime, the US is dangerous, has resources of value, and makes many mistakes which need correcting. Who shall invade this nation and send Bush into exile?

What national leader shall call for Mr. Bush's murder, and would we as a people accept that?Exactly! So why do you care that 20 years ago, the US sold weapons to Saddam? I'm surprised you can't make the link to point 6.Okay okay. Yeah, I forgot about that. Look, if there's a bad Frenchman joke, I haven't heard it. But when we move past our usual disrespect toward things French (unless they f:eek:ck us or get us drunk) and start the kind of Francophobic mania that is sweeping the nation, I think we've overstepped any sense of humor.

Do you think this is comparative somehow? It's all wrong, Counsler, and it's what brought us to the point at which we find ourselves. Objectively, I see no point in beating a dead war-horse.

What I'm after with that list of points is how silly your deflections are.*Blinks* Tiassa, I have seriously no idea what your talking about.You seem to present the argument that history justifies the wrongs of the present. I say the whole mess is wrong. But since Australia is so awful, let's invade it. Oh, wait ... there's no oil.

As to the Clinton administration: McCaffrey and others threw a hissy-fit all over the Aussies and basically tried to forcibly veto the opening of heroin shooting galleries as a harm-reduction measure.

Which part had you no idea?See number two.See number 6.Which way would that be? Well, in that case the French haven't changed much either. Heck, the Russians have an ex-KGB agent in office.The Germans don't invade anyone these days. They keep their covert actions to a minimum. They strive for world peace. This is a huge digression from the machinations of National Socialism, and one which we all appreciate.

The US has shown no such change of behavior. Twenty years ago? Who are we propping up today? And for how much? We still have the School of the Americas (best tyrant-training in the West), still have our armies all over the world, and have announced via the Bush Doctrine that if you don't give us what we want, we'll come and get it.

What difficulty are you having understanding this point that you would overlook it twice while citing it and demonstrably, in response to that citation, fail to understand it? I'd be happy to clear it up, but I don't understand what is so confusing.

- So last year bully Joe jumped you several times for the hell of it. He's a prig. But over the summer you guys got to talking and he respects you now and doesn't attack you. Can you see the difference?

- So last year bully Joe jumped you several times for the hell of it. He's a prig. And over the summer he wrecked your bike, kicked your dog, felt up your sister, and mugged you for thirty bucks. But his mother loves him, so why don't you think Joe is a nice guy?

As noted: The United States, unlike Germany, and like Iraq, has not shown a willing deviation from its bellicose ways (methods).Either one. But I feel that even after he is exiled, the Government will still be after him Too bad about the people of Iraq, then. One of the difficulties I've picked up from reading various articles about the 1997 allocation of funds for toppling Saddam is that it's hard to find anyone willing to replace him that we can tolerate. Sure there are many warlords who want to ditch Saddam, but just so they can be the next one. If victory comes with the end of Saddam Hussein, well, I'm not surprised by the war-party's failure to consider what comes next. Try re-reading this point in consideration of point 9.Hey! Why don't those countries step in and help? The us doesnt have all the money in the world... Well, not yet.Would you take part in something that is, in your opinion, ill-devised, wrongly executed, and possibly detrimental in the long run? Specifically, would you take part without questioning the detriment of the method? Would you take part merely because it beats doing nothing?Tiassa! I AGREE!!!Well, then ... it would seem that we have not, in fact, exhausted options more peaceful than invasion. To be more general:

- It would seem that we have not exhausted peaceful options, and thus move prematurely toward war, which is rhetorically reserved as a "last resort".That doesn't stop the fact that he's dangerous and has WMD.So do we. Perhaps I would be more sympathetic to this point except for two considerations:

- The inspection and disarmament process intends to fix that problem.
- It would be easier to care if we hadn't left a bunch of spent uranium lying around Iraq last time. Dirty bomb? How is that any different from depleted-uranium rounds?

Radiation does not discriminate.Good point... Didn't I ask you that question before?The question floats around the forum from time to time. But in this consideration I happen to be the one who is not blindly relying on the political bandwagon to make my case.The people who gave Saddam weapons are either:

A. Dead
B. Out of Buisiness.
C. So long ago that the statue of limitations is up.
D. Different era, different situation.Yeah, that's a great reason to exonerate Don Rumsfeld. Of course, it was 1997 that a Truth Commission finally wrangled details of Biko's death out of some of those responsible. Why did anyone worry about it for that long?

That's a pretty stupid line of reasoning you've offered. Cheney and Rumsfeld are both alive and in business. There is no statute of limitation on murder. And the different era, different situation excuse is absolute horsepucky and well beneath your usual standards. I mean, come on: the same players pursuing the same goal and just because, what, the Soviet Union is now a bunch of different countries you think this is a different era and situation to the point that we ought to simply continue with the belligerent and lethal policies which led us to this quagmire?

Three strikes laws: Why hold past crimes against a killer? Sure, he committed rape and murder before, but it was a different era and a different circumstance.

Think of it this way: Rarely do I find myself on the same side of the table as China. Do I have reservations about this? Yes. But since the Chinese government and I share a sentiment of peace, the potential consequences are severely lessened. I'm not gambling on the Chinese ability to kill people according to my standards. I'm gambling against killing. I can no more control the circumstances of China's political position than I can predict the dice in a craps game, except in the craps game, I can always choose to not throw at all.

Tit for tat comparisons and quid pro quo comparisons fail because they examine different results. Don't tell me about German history. They're arguing for peace. Don't point out Chinese atrocities; they're arguing for peace. The problems can always be addressed if we're addressing problems, but people will still be oppressed by the Chinese or the Koreans or the Iraqis whether or not we're shooting.

What it comes down to is a simple idea: The status quo is the status quo. Promise me improvement, and I'll gamble for improvement. But don't try to sell a regression as progress. If warfare in history had a different objective result than a proliferation of combat and division, I would believe people when they tell me that bombing the sh:eek:t out of Iraq will make a positive difference.

But victory is apparently about Saddam Hussein, and in twenty years we get to take down the next Iraqi dictator?

When all is said and done: Invasion, victory, military government, puppet government, second revolution, third revolution, and finally some glimmer of stability, will it have been worth it?

Or could we have spent those billions of dollars elsewise and gotten a better result faster?

A last note regarding your discussion with [i]Pollux V:in the 1980's the United States was more worried about communism spreading, then terrorist bombing crap. At the time, America's big worry was Iran, not Iraq. The Reagan administration feared that the Iranian revolutionaries who had overthrown the shaw (and taken hostage American diplomats for 444 days in 1979) would overrun the Middle East and its vital oilfields. On the theory that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, the Reaganites were seeking to support Iraq in war against Iran.Russia, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Vietnam, Korea ... in all the history of warfare, dating back to time immemorial, the one consistent commonality of all wars is that they are wars. Look at how many "dangerous" concerns we balanced in any decade. How many of those were avoidable?

The Russians for instance: We could have done more to prevent the Cold War. But we harangued the Bolsheviks from day one, and hung them out to dry against the Germans. People think Kruschev was evil for banging his shoe on the table ("We will bury you!") but in reality he was mostly frustrated, and like Dubya, speaking out of anger.

And given Reagan's possibly treasonous role in the Iranian affair, I think the fallacy of warfare and military solutions futher exposes itself.

How many leaks can you patch in a ship that's taking on water before you simply need a new boat?

A new hypothesis of progressive international methodology is much needed.
"Might is right" leaves everyone scrambling for the biggest, deadliest toys they can find.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

/me gives tissa a standing ovation

Pollux, in the 1980's the United States was more worried about communism spreading, then terrorist bombing crap. At the time, America's big worry was Iran, not Iraq. The Reagan administration feared that the Iranian revolutionaries who had overthrown the shaw (and taken hostage American diplomats for 444 days in 1979) would overrun the Middle East and its vital oilfields. On the theory that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, the Reaganites were seeking to support Iraq in war against Iran.

Look---

During the Cold War, the U.S. supported Iran while the Soviets supported Iraq. During the Iran-Iraq War, our policy was to ensure that neither side won decisively.Here (http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/telhami/20020213.htm)

We didn't give a crap about who would win. As long as the oil was okay, and as long as we could continue to profit from their deaths, everything was hoochie-kooochie. The Soviets got to cash in on this as well. If one side was victorious then they might figure out, sooner or later, that we were behind it all. Plus, communism has been off the radar for awhile, however the new fear that's being crammed down our throats is terrorism. The new public enemy number one is just as evil, has a different shade of skin and a different assortment of letters before the "ist" at the end of his name. They're all jealous of our freedom and our riches. They all want to bring us down because they're sick of us being better than them. We all need a devil to fear and to keep us in line...

Com-com-com-karma-karma-commie-Communist Terrorists!
Agh! The War on Communist Tit-Tit-tit-Terror!:eek:

The extent of his danger is debatable. He's a huffy child with nasty toys. But oil is the main concern. We're in Afghanistan, where there's oil, we're in Iraq, where there's oil. We're leaving Nepal--which has no oil--out of it and seeking another way to resolve a more immediate difficulty with North Korea. I'd say the primary motive is petrol-related.

Oil... that oil part of my post was a joke. Analyze who is going to gain from the oil glut on the market. Wait a minute... if there is a huge glut on the market, Supply/Demand logic means the oil prices will plummet. Bush and his cronies in the oil world will take a substantial hit. France has contracts with Iraq: they stand to lose billions if Saddam is removed.

In the meantime, the US is dangerous, has resources of value, and makes many mistakes which need correcting. Who shall invade this nation and send Bush into exile?

What national leader shall call for Mr. Bush's murder, and would we as a people accept that?

Bush isn't having people shot in the street for not being on his side. Bush also doesnt have professinal rapists.

I'm surprised you can't make the link to point 6.

(6) The United States, unlike Germany, and like Iraq, has not shown a willing deviation from its bellicose ways.

What ways? What are you talking about. (Note: This is the Counsler writing a very long post, I loose things because I cut and paste a lot.)

Look, if there's a bad Frenchman joke, I haven't heard it. But when we move past our usual disrespect toward things French (unless they fck us or get us drunk) and start the kind of Francophobic mania that is sweeping the nation, I think we've overstepped any sense of humor.

Do you think this is comparative somehow? It's all wrong, Counsler, and it's what brought us to the point at which we find ourselves. Objectively, I see no point in beating a dead war-horse.

What I'm after with that list of points is how silly your deflections are.

I never made a joke about the French. My silly deflections Tiassa? Your the one whose almost resorting to insults, or at least it seems this way on this end.

m to present the argument that history justifies the wrongs of the present. I say the whole mess is wrong. But since Australia is so awful, let's invade it. Oh, wait ... there's no oil.

No I don't. This debate was about how the Americans (In the 80's) gave Saddam weapons and supported him. This thread was never about oil. Read above about whose going to loose the most. The past is the past, people make mistakes. Is this a mistake that needs to be corrected? Yes. It's part our fault that he's in power. But my major concern is the fact that he's dangerous, not complying, and is just a bad bad man who should listen to his mama.

Clinton administration: McCaffrey and others threw a hissy-fit all over the Aussies and basically tried to forcibly veto the opening of heroin shooting galleries as a harm-reduction measure.

That is the part that I dont understand. I dont see what Clinton, and Australia have to do with Iraq's past.


The Germans don't invade anyone these days. They keep their covert actions to a minimum. They strive for world peace. This is a huge digression from the machinations of National Socialism, and one which we all appreciate.

So why should the US be in trouble for selling weapons to Iraq in the 80's when it seemed to make the most of amount of sense at the time?

The US has shown no such change of behavior. Twenty years ago? Who are we propping up today? And for how much? We still have the School of the Americas (best tyrant-training in the West), still have our armies all over the world, and have announced via the Bush Doctrine that if you don't give us what we want, we'll come and get it.

Fine. The US will disban NATO. We'll pull out of Japan, and we'll take our soldiers out of Sadui Arabia, and then we'll become isolationist again. Of course the entire world is screwed because the United States goes in and stabilizes areas... But hey, we dont need that.

Tiassa, do I go to the School of the Americas? No. I dont. Do those people over in Iraq have that whole Hitler part of history in their books, no.

As for the Bush doctrine: This is not a pre emptive strike, but a resumption of hostilities. The first Gulf war ended in a cease fire. Under certain conditions, we stopped bombing Iraq. However, as Iraq has failed its UN obligations, we have intermittently resumed bombing in the last decade or so with impunity. Therefore this would just be picking up where we left off.

What difficulty are you having understanding this point that you would overlook it twice while citing it and demonstrably, in response to that citation, fail to understand it? I'd be happy to clear it up, but I don't understand what is so confusing.

- So last year bully Joe jumped you several times for the hell of it. He's a prig. But over the summer you guys got to talking and he respects you now and doesn't attack you. Can you see the difference?

- So last year bully Joe jumped you several times for the hell of it. He's a prig. And over the summer he wrecked your bike, kicked your dog, felt up your sister, and mugged you for thirty bucks. But his mother loves him, so why don't you think Joe is a nice guy?

You lost me right here.

Too bad about the people of Iraq, then. One of the difficulties I've picked up from reading various articles about the 1997 allocation of funds for toppling Saddam is that it's hard to find anyone willing to replace him that we can tolerate. Sure there are many warlords who want to ditch Saddam, but just so they can be the next one. If victory comes with the end of Saddam Hussein, well, I'm not surprised by the war-party's failure to consider what comes next. Try re-reading this point in consideration of point 9.

Someone can be found. Given time someone will be found.

Would you take part in something that is, in your opinion, ill-devised, wrongly executed, and possibly detrimental in the long run? Specifically, would you take part without questioning the detriment of the method? Would you take part merely because it beats doing nothing?

No. But If I stood to loose money (Like the French), then heck yeah I disagree.

- It would seem that we have not exhausted peaceful options, and thus move prematurely toward war, which is rhetorically reserved as a "last resort".

As I have said before: This is not a pre emptive strike, but a resumption of hostilities. The first Gulf war ended in a cease fire. Under certain conditions, we stopped bombing Iraq. However, as Iraq has failed its UN obligations, we have intermittently resumed bombing in the last decade or so with impunity. Therefore this would just be picking up where we left off. Do I want war? No. I'd hate to have one. We have looked at different options, we have tolerated it for long enough. Saddam needs to be taken out of power one way or the other. If there is another option coughassasinationcough then go for it!

So do we. Perhaps I would be more sympathetic to this point except for two considerations:

- The inspection and disarmament process intends to fix that problem.
- It would be easier to care if we hadn't left a bunch of spent uranium lying around Iraq last time. Dirty bomb? How is that any different from depleted-uranium rounds?

Radiation does not discriminate.

Look, inspections have had enough time. Imagne that your kid got caught smoking weed, he denies everything and is defensive and accusatory. At what point do you actually punish the child for smoking weed? Do you just keep hiring babysitters watch over him? At some point you have to lay down the law and Mean What You Say.

Yeah, that's a great reason to exonerate Don Rumsfeld. Of course, it was 1997 that a Truth Commission finally wrangled details of Biko's death out of some of those responsible. Why did anyone worry about it for that long?

That's a pretty stupid line of reasoning you've offered. Cheney and Rumsfeld are both alive and in business. There is no statute of limitation on murder. And the different era, different situation excuse is absolute horsepucky and well beneath your usual standards. I mean, come on: the same players pursuing the same goal and just because, what, the Soviet Union is now a bunch of different countries you think this is a different era and situation to the point that we ought to simply continue with the belligerent and lethal policies which led us to this quagmire?

What power does Rumsfeld have? None. He's the Presidents Bi-atch. So Im not that worried about Rumsfeld being in office. As for Cheney, where did that come from? Never heard of it before.

The different era, different situation "excuse" is ligit. We are no longer fighting communism. Russia is an allie. Things are very different from the 80's.

Three strikes laws: Why hold past crimes against a killer? Sure, he committed rape and murder before, but it was a different era and a different circumstance.

That is so not what I meant. Were talking about Governments, not people. Governments change often, like every four years when we have a different President (Or the same one).

Think of it this way: Rarely do I find myself on the same side of the table as China. Do I have reservations about this? Yes. But since the Chinese government and I share a sentiment of peace, the potential consequences are severely lessened. I'm not gambling on the Chinese ability to kill people according to my standards. I'm gambling against killing. I can no more control the circumstances of China's political position than I can predict the dice in a craps game, except in the craps game, I can always choose to not throw at all.

Tit for tat comparisons and quid pro quo comparisons fail because they examine different results. Don't tell me about German history. They're arguing for peace. Don't point out Chinese atrocities; they're arguing for peace. The problems can always be addressed if we're addressing problems, but people will still be oppressed by the Chinese or the Koreans or the Iraqis whether or not we're shooting.

Then why do you hold the past incarnation of America responsible for what its done?

But victory is apparently about Saddam Hussein, and in twenty years we get to take down the next Iraqi dictator?

When all is said and done: Invasion, victory, military government, puppet government, second revolution, third revolution, and finally some glimmer of stability, will it have been worth it?

Or could we have spent those billions of dollars elsewise and gotten a better result faster?

Who said that there would be another Iraqi dictator? Your jumping to conclusions Tiassa. Stability? Yeah, it's worth it. Considering that Stability last longer then anything else (Japan, NATO).

Russia, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Vietnam, Korea ... in all the history of warfare, dating back to time immemorial, the one consistent commonality of all wars is that they are wars. Look at how many "dangerous" concerns we balanced in any decade. How many of those were avoidable?

The Russians for instance: We could have done more to prevent the Cold War. But we harangued the Bolsheviks from day one, and hung them out to dry against the Germans. People think Kruschev was evil for banging his shoe on the table ("We will bury you!") but in reality he was mostly frustrated, and like Dubya, speaking out of anger.

And given Reagan's possibly treasonous role in the Iranian affair, I think the fallacy of warfare and military solutions futher exposes itself.

How many leaks can you patch in a ship that's taking on water before you simply need a new boat?

At the time it seemed like a good idea. You can't change the past, and you can't predict the future. So why debate it? Just because the US handeled things differently back then, doesnt mean that its the current incanations fault. And Reagan isnt in office anymore, he has no power. He's out, hes gone! He doesnt matter anymore!

Pollux,

We didn't give a crap about who would win. As long as the oil was okay, and as long as we could continue to profit from their deaths, everything was hoochie-kooochie. The Soviets got to cash in on this as well. If one side was victorious then they might figure out, sooner or later, that we were behind it all. Plus, communism has been off the radar for awhile, however the new fear that's being crammed down our throats is terrorism. The new public enemy number one is just as evil, has a different shade of skin and a different assortment of letters before the "ist" at the end of his name. They're all jealous of our freedom and our riches. They all want to bring us down because they're sick of us being better than them. We all need a devil to fear and to keep us in line...


At the time, it might of seemed like a good idea. Now? No. Its not a good idea. Looking back we see that we could of did things differently because we know how things turn out. But back then they didnt know how things would turn out.

Something that I dont understand Pollux. At first you said that we gave them weapons, now your saying that we sold them weapons. How did you jump to that?

At the time, it might of seemed like a good idea. Now? No. Its not a good idea. Looking back we see that we could of did things differently because we know how things turn out. But back then they didnt know how things would turn out.

Something that I dont understand Pollux. At first you said that we gave them weapons, now your saying that we sold them weapons. How did you jump to that?

Counsler, they knew that the man would kill people. They knew he was crazy. How could they not know? And, technically you're right--I did jump from give to sold, but both times I meant the same thing. Our weapons became his weapons, sometimes with money exchanged, possibly sometimes without. We should never have sold them those weapons. We should never have put him in power. Think of how many insane people we're putting into power right now that we'll be fighting twenty years in the future. They are not strategically viable. If they were strategically viable they'd be trying to help their people and not be trying to gas them.

Counsler, they knew that the man would kill people.
Yes, the enemy. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

They knew he was crazy. How could they not know? And, technically you're right--I did jump from give to sold, but both times I meant the same thing.

Okay, thats fine, I did to.

Our weapons became his weapons, sometimes with money exchanged, possibly sometimes without. We should never have sold them those weapons. We should never have put him in power.

Your right, but at the time it might of seemed like a good idea.

Think of how many insane people we're putting into power right now that we'll be fighting twenty years in the future. They are not strategically viable. If they were strategically viable they'd be trying to help their people and not be trying to gas them.

Perhaps your right. But 20 years from now a military base will probably be in the center of Baghdad.

Analyze who is going to gain from the oil glut on the market. Wait a minute... if there is a huge glut on the market, Supply/Demand logic means the oil prices will plummet. Bush and his cronies in the oil world will take a substantial hit. France has contracts with Iraq: they stand to lose billions if Saddam is removed.Think of the increased production and consumption that comes with low energy prices. The petrol companies will still prosper.

As to France? Well, in this case all their contracts do is consider irrelevant the human costs. We, the People of the United States of America buy much from China. It still sickens me that Poppy Bush advocated maintaining and renewing China's MFN trade status after Tiananmen Square, but advocates pointed out that in maintaining friendly relations, we maintained a certain amount of political leverage. It was a trade-off: maintain a trade imbalance and reward a human atrocity in order to pretend that you will have influence in a foreign nation. Now then, as to France? Why don't they get to say what you offer on behalf of Americans: It seemed like a good idea at the time.

Of course it's a ridiculous excuse, just as it is for Americans. But then again, if French greed is holding the line against open warfare, at least greed is giving something back instead of merely taking taking taking. Philosophical theories have dwelt on this question for at least a thousand years without a clear answer: In this case, however, the countervailing interest--greed--is maintaining the progressive passion--peace. Strange how it works out.

So ... as to France?Bush isn't having people shot in the street for not being on his side. Bush also doesnt have professinal rapists. True, even Patriot II doesn't even go to the point of open murder.

However, if you'll follow the vein of the point you're responding to, why prefer one form of danger to another?

True, we don't maintain professional rapists on the payroll. We just train them for other countries.I never made a joke about the French. My silly deflections Tiassa? Your the one whose almost resorting to insults, or at least it seems this way on this end.Did I say you made a joke about the French?

Read closer. I'm the one who made the most recent joke about the French that I can think of in this discussion.

Go back to where I responded to you with ten points concerning the war and read through the block of text I cited from your post.

What you don't understand is that I think all of those things were ill-advised, and if we're going to hold people accountable, it cannot be arbitrarily.

Damn ... I hate when I miss a section of the post. This is out of order 'cuz it's easier to cover it this way than to ... oh, whatever. At any rate:
What ways? What are you talking about. (Note: This is the Counsler writing a very long post, I loose things because I cut and paste a lot.) I will here admit that you have (most likely accidentally) done something that annoys the hell out of me. In order to answer you I now have to reconstruct several posts' worth of information because your isolated inquiry is now long-enough running and ...

At any rate ...

- (2) Germany has shown a deviation from its 60 year-lost pattern
- (6) The United States, unlike Germany, and like Iraq, has not shown a willing deviation from its bellicose ways.
- Exactly! So why do you care that 20 years ago, the US sold weapons to Saddam?
- I'm surprised you can't make the link to point 6.
- Which way would that be? Well, in that case the French haven't changed much either. Heck, the Russians have an ex-KGB agent in office.
- What ways? What are you talking about.

Now then, I think those are the relevant pieces of the discussion.

The United States still operates the School of the Americas. The United States still sends covert operatives to bend situations to our will. The United States has soldiers deployed in Central America fighting a Drug War that is demonstrably illogical. The United States has employed and, under the Bush Doctrine, has declared its intention to escalate the employment of our armed services unnecessarily in order to achieve our will. The United States pleads warfare as a last resort, yet even our moment of agreement shows this plea to be deceitful--we have not exhausted "peaceful" options.

What we do today looks and smells the same as what we did twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, sixty, seventy, and eighty years ago. As noted: Germany hasn't invaded anyone for sixty years.

That's a huge difference to me.

You know, a violent man who once beat his wife and sought therapy, ceased his violence, and strengthened his marriage has much to offer the world in terms of perspective on domestic violence. However, a man who continues to beat his wife is less credible. Can we agree on that?

Germany stopped beating its wife a long time ago. Iraq exists under special conditions that define extra acts which constitute wife-beating. The United States has never stopped beating its wife.

Now, how confusing should I make this? For it is not to say that Iraq is not beating its wife, but to point out that some actions by Iraq which constitute wife-beating would not otherwise be though of in the same context were it, for instance, the United States.

- Hint: While there is no question that Hussein is atrocious, some of the conditions describing atrocity are also ones which the United States is guilty of; possession of weapons of mass destruction; a willingness to use "dirty" ammunition (a low-grade WMD); provision of WMD to evil or wrong parties; a willingness to meddle in the affairs of those it shouldn't, &c, &c, &c ...

That's the difference.

Would you parole Charles Manson? All other considerations aside, the only factor I need to know in order to deny him parole is that he intends to kill again. Likewise, when you ask, "What ways?" I can only refer to the bellicose ways which are the bread and butter of American foreign policy for several decades, which we have restated and re-endorsed with even more ferocity. No I don't. This debate was about how the Americans (In the 80's) gave Saddam weapons and supported him. This thread was never about oil. Read above about whose going to loose the most. That, "No I don't" is really irritating: Is this a mistake that needs to be corrected? Yes. It's part our fault that he's in power. Well, I must ask you now: Is it appropriate for the US to invade Iraq? Because where you object to my assessment of your argument, you turn around and validate that assessment.

- Is this a mistake that needs to be corrected?
- Yes.

(How?)

- It's part our fault that he's in power.
- ... dangerous, not complying, and ... bad bad man ....

(What to do about it?)

And yet these mistakes of the past, which--by their nature as mistakes--should not have happened create the circumstances alleged to warrant the warfare. In other words, the wrongs of the past are being used to justify the wrongs of the present (e.g. invading Iraq).That is the part that I dont understand. I dont see what Clinton, and Australia have to do with Iraq's past.That's why I also asked which part you hadn't understood. Because the Australia thing has nothing to do with Iraq except the ironic comment that the ironic comment about invading Australia was technically unnecessary, since we nearly write the laws down there anyway.

You raised issues concerning a number of nations. I am answering them. I don't see what's confusing about that part.
So why should the US be in trouble for selling weapons to Iraq in the 80's when it seemed to make the most of amount of sense at the time? The absolutely balderdash assumption there is in the idea of what seemed to make the most amount of sense at the time. This lack of vision, this foreign-policy idiocy, only made sense if you operated under the presumption that the military is the primary option.

The question should be: So why should the US be in trouble for removing Iraq from the terrorist-sponsor list in order to sell Iraq weapons with the intent of bolstering Iraq's forces in a war declared against Iran, who overthrew a vile dictator who gave the US good oil prices?

It's not like I'm recommending UN sanctions or anything. It's just that when we stop stroking the dictators, there will be fewer of them to worry about.

So excepting the idea that the US should "be in trouble"--that the US is considered not trustworthy is a fair enough assessment--I would hope that the answer is obvious.

Because the wrong of the past (supporting Shah Reza) justified a wrong of the past (supporting Hussein) which in turn leads to the circumstances justifying the present wrong (invading Iraq).

How many cycles--how many generations--should we endure?The US will disban NATO. We'll pull out of Japan, and we'll take our soldiers out of Sadui Arabia, and then we'll become isolationist again.I had intended, at the end of this post, to address directly your comment about my becoming insulting, or giving the appearance thereof. I will address a couple of specific points later, but I have to say that your text which I have cited immediately above is one of those irritating things which results in an erosion of my patience.

So it would seem that the choice you're examining is:

- Send soldiers all over the world, or,
- Retreat into isolationism

You know, during the cold war our business sector went abroad and evangelized the American Way with an incredible degree of success. (I can't find, with either Google or Sciforums' search engine, an old citation I made from Stephen Ambrose on this very subject.) It is worth noting that this period saw the government moving on behalf of American commercial interests (there is presently talk, for instance, that the Iraqi reconstruction will be done through American companies exclusively). Some of what we've done for our commerce sector is included in the bad stuff of our history, those bellicose ways that we have not yet forsaken. However, in addition to truculence and isolationism, there is also diplomatic, commercial, social, and spiritual engagements to be had with the rest of the world. What irritates me about the war-party argument in this case is that it arbitrarily reduces the options to an unsupportable dualism.Tiassa, do I go to the School of the Americas? No. I dont. Do those people over in Iraq have that whole Hitler part of history in their books, no. Would you find it insulting if, for instance, I don't give a rat's ass that you didn't go to the School of the Americas? As a taxpayer, I've paid funds toward the training of mercenaries and tyrants who commit atrocities. My father's tax dollars (and his whole generation) were spent on various things, of course, but among them the training of nefarious killers in history. Perhaps it doesn't bother you that you sponsor human atrocities with your tax dollars, but it bothers the hell out of me. It's easy to say, "Do I go to the School of the Americas? No." It's very easy to say it if one moves to hold history against one side of the dispute while forgiving the history of the other.As for the Bush doctrine: This is not a pre emptive strike, but a resumption of hostilities. The first Gulf war ended in a cease fire. Under certain conditions, we stopped bombing Iraq. However, as Iraq has failed its UN obligations, we have intermittently resumed bombing in the last decade or so with impunity. Therefore this would just be picking up where we left off. "Intermittently resumed?" :p

As for the Bush doctrine: The reason we did not go to Baghdad the first time around is because that violates our pretext of using our military in a noble manner. I know, I know--Vietnam and other wars. But the war party doesn't care. It never has. War pigs will always seek a way to justify their "nobility". As we see in the case of the coming Iraqi Bush War.

(Just as a side note: Even I know Saddam has hidden weapons. But why declare them? Remember, their mere existence constitutes a material breach.)

But the Bush doctrine is what we need in order to "go all the way to Baghdad". It is a paradigm-level change; in a certain dimension it is a 180° change.You lost me right here.To be honest, that no longer surprises me. I'm sorry, but it's a simple point and a relatively simple comparative analogy. It's a question of whether or not bellicose behavior ceases. I'm sorry that it has to get a few paragraphs deep, but I can't figure out what is so difficult about it. With so many one-liners, you're not telling me much about what confuses you. And when you do ...Someone can be found. Given time someone will be found. Theoretically, I agree.

The question, though, is how much time, and how to do it? We've already noted that other options still exist relatively untried. The only question remaining (as if it actually remains at all) is whether or not to invade Iraq in order to accomplish this objective. Just because we haven't tried other options does not mean invasion is our only option.No. But If I stood to loose money (Like the French), then heck yeah I disagree.I would ask that you consider a portion above which deals with money. As a matter of fact, it seems to be the first one addressed in this post.This is not a pre emptive strike, but a resumption of hostilities. The first Gulf war ended in a cease fire. Under certain conditions, we stopped bombing Iraq. However, as Iraq has failed its UN obligations, we have intermittently resumed bombing in the last decade or so with impunity. Therefore this would just be picking up where we left off.And where we left off was where we had to on principles of integrity. How Poppy Bush comes out of this looking like a decent fellow I can't quite explain. But only another Bush could accomplish that. The Bush Doctrine throws that integrity to the winds and flips off the world. We have had to rewrite the basis of foreign policy--e.g. Bush Doctrine--in order to "pick up where we left off". Theoretically, if I was president, I could try to slip through some legislation allowing me to use my nukes--if it's well-enough buried as a rider, it might work--and then bomb Moscow for the hell of it, merely "picking up where we left off". What's important there is that we left off at the limit last time.

Let me try to put it into terms that are easily understood:

- Think of Star Wars. In 1776, we were the guys with the funny hats and X-Wings. With the Bush Doctrine we have announced our intention to be the guys with the hard-breathing Sith Lord, a Death Star, and a seemingly endless supply of TIE fighters.

Easy enough?We have looked at different options, we have tolerated it for long enough.Yeah, there is that. I need to perceive something before I choose to ridicule it. Whether it's white trash that I must look at and listen to before they become morbidly humorous on reruns of "COPS" or the mere idea of George Dubya Bush as a Christian, I must perceive it before I laugh at it.

In such a manner, it is fair to say that the political leaders "looked at" other options.Saddam needs to be taken out of power one way or the other. If there is another option coughassasinationcough then go for it!You know ... I'm tempted to point out that we agreed that other options were left without proper consideration.
Look, inspections have had enough time. Can I ask a question here? Can I get a show of hands?

Who the hell really thought the terms of the end of Desert Storm would hold?

Now then:

Who the hell really thought it would be this long before we went back to blow up even more stuff in Iraq?

Not I, said the Duck. Not I.

But it doesn't make it right.Imagne that your kid got caught smoking weed, he denies everything and is defensive and accusatory.Ummm ....

You know--

(no, that won't work.)

Er ....

Even after I strip away the differences--e.g. parental responsibility, &c.--well, I still have to further change the terms of the question because, well ...

First off: Imagne that your kid got caught smoking weed.

(Please remember that this is me you're addressing. It's not a question of if, it's a question of when, and a question of who will catch her. Beyond that, if she is defensive and accusatory, then I have failed as a parent. Period.)

Now: At what point do you actually punish the child for smoking weed?

I don't. But I'll have a good deal to say about her getting caught.

And: At some point you have to lay down the law and Mean What You Say.

And at that point I must consider whether I have exploited all better options or whether I have rushed to judgment.

Please understand that I say this not about any one person specifically (namely you, whom I do not know well enough to assess as such): I well understand why people employ shortcuts, myths, and other tricks to get through life. It is very difficult to live up to one's own rhetoric. However, y'all at Sciforums have in the long term a unique opportunity: I fully intend to raise my daughter as an acknowledged sovereign entity. All of this fierce idealism--of course I'm not going to accomplish it, but I'm determined to go down trying. Like with pacifism: it hasn't ever been fairly tried, and the war solution objectively and demonstrably has failed in the modern era, especially in the twentieth and now twenty-first centuries. But someone's gotta give it a whirl, or else we won't ever begin to understand.

However, as to the question: It has to be modified too severely to answer directly, invoking different considerations.

I mean, come on ... me? My kid smoking weed? I might have to be firm about it if she's like, seven. But punishment--retribution--is less important to me than correction. (Incidentally, try saying that and then thinking about prisons. It's irrelevant, I know.)What power does Rumsfeld have? None. He's the Presidents Bi-atch. So Im not that worried about Rumsfeld being in office. As for Cheney, where did that come from? Never heard of it before.Um ... Cheney is a longstanding player in these circles:

- 1969: Nixon Administration - Cost of Living Council, Office of Economic Opportunity, White House staff positions.

- 1974: Ford Administration - Transition team, Deputy Assistant to the President, Assistant to the President, White House Chief of Staff

- 1978: Wyoming - US House of Representatives (thru 1989)

- 1981: US Congress - Chairman of House Republican Policy Committee

- 1988: US Congress - House Minority Whip

- 1989: Bush (41) Administration - Secretary of Defense

- 1995: Halliburton Co. - CEO

- 2001: Bush (43) Administration - Vice President of the United States

Cheney as SoD oversaw Desert Storm and also "Just Cause" in Panama. Incidentally, Poppy was merely cleaning up one of his own Frankensteins in that case, having as CIA director kept Noriega on the US payroll.

He's a long player in bad foreign policy. Oh, I get most of that list from the White House (http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/vpbio.html). I had to look up his Halliburton period elsewhere.

As to why I mentioned Cheney? Why not? I was just addressing what I considered four false points of exoneration.

And as to Rumsfeld: At first I thought you were going so far as to invoke the Nuremberg Defense. And that fourth sentence in the paragraph was almost no help at all. You're not worried about Rumsfeld being in office? He's the freaking Secretary of Defense of the United States of America. Either way .... Wow. :bugeye:The different era, different situation "excuse" is ligit. We are no longer fighting communism. Russia is an allie. Things are very different from the 80's. Yet we operate on the old hypothesis, and restate it even more emphatically where it was merely an unwritten convention before.

How, by the "different era, different situation" logic, can we condemn the actions of Hitler? It was an era completely foreign to my experience, and conditions I have never lived through. Who knows? Perhaps he was ... uh ... well, you get the drift. Well, I hope.Were talking about Governments, not people. Governments change often, like every four years when we have a different President (Or the same one).You know ... this is Rumsfeld's second term as Secretary of Defense (http://www.defenselink.mil/bios/rumsfeld.html). He was, incidentally, by technicality, Cheney's boss in 1969 (Director of Office of Economic Opportunity). Part of the world's reluctance to follow the US at present comes from the fact that, despite the changing governments, the policies don't get much better. Something about having not forsaken our bellicose ways?Then why do you hold the past incarnation of America responsible for what its done? This, incidentally, is another thing that I find irritating enough to get condescending about.

Look, if you can't cope with the fact the "past incarnation" is still with us, there's not much more I can do to explain it to you. Charles Manson again: Is Helter Skelter part of a "past incarnation" of a personality, or does the fact that he will state openly and proudly that wants to kill again indicate that the Charlie we all knew and loved is still the same sick bastard?

An abandoned policy--e.g. National Socialism in Germany--is a "past incarnation". Changing administrations do not excuse consistent policy: Americans have always favored the gun over rational solutions. That "past incarnation" isn't quite past yet.Who said that there would be another Iraqi dictator? Your jumping to conclusions Tiassa. Stability? Yeah, it's worth it. Considering that Stability last longer then anything else (Japan, NATO). Well, as I said, if victory is about Saddam Hussein ....

To me, whether or not we go to war, victory will come whenever the Iraqi people stop suffering the effects of Saddam Hussein and American tampering. I don't expect victory in my lifetime.

That's why I asked if victory was about Saddam Hussein. You noted that either exile or death would constitute victory. I don't see anything as being over at that point. It's a fundamental consideration as I see it.

In the meantime, if you don't want me pointing out your "silly deflections", please try addressing the issues instead of avoiding them. I restate the questions you failed to address:

- When all is said and done: Invasion, victory, military government, puppet government, second revolution, third revolution, and finally some glimmer of stability, will it have been worth it?

- Or could we have spent those billions of dollars elsewise and gotten a better result faster?

Do you find me insulting? I would apologize except for the fact that I find your argumentative line quite annoying for its simple inability to address the issues in a straightforward, respectable manner.

Seriously: If you would prefer that I not say things about you hiding from the issues, don't hide from them.At the time it seemed like a good idea . You can't change the past, and you can't predict the future. So why debate it?Like this, Counsler: How the hell am I supposed to have any respect for that?!

Seriously! How the hell do you expect me to respect the intelligence of your argument?

When did objective examinations of history and its results become something so irrelevant to planning the future? Is it just too inconvenient to look honestly at warfare and what it brings? Is it a lack of integrity? Is it a psychosis?Just because the US handeled things differently back then, doesnt mean that its the current incanations fault. And Reagan isnt in office anymore, he has no power. He's out, hes gone! He doesnt matter anymore!Why worry about Neo-Nazis? Hitler's dead.

Why worry about Iranian Shi'ite extremists? After all, Khomeni's dead.

You can't blame Dubya for what Reagan did. But you can blame Dubya for keeping the belligerence alive and kicking.

However, as long as I choose to accommodate your refusal to consider these issues with any objective integrity, I can understand how the logic works.

A note on insults

Really, I had tried to keep this section until the end, but as you see, it bled into a few points above. You noted: Your the one whose almost resorting to insults, or at least it seems this way on this end.

Now, Counsler Coffee, I'll fully admit that the reason my tone gets sharper is that you really are that irritating. You're running around in circles frothing for a war you say you don't want. You refuse an objective examination of history, demand a subjective exploitation of history, very possibly invoked the Nuremberg Defense for Rumsfeld (I'm doing everything I can to read that otherwise), you ignore questions or answer them with irrelevant questions of your own. What? What the hell would you like me to say about this utterly stupid tantrum of disrespect you've put on?

You know, I understand that I'm sometimes obscure; the Frenchman joke thing--I can almost see how that confused you. But in order for me to sympathize with what I can assess of your difficulties comprehending the issues I have to cast you in an absolutely terrible light, and I'm not prepared to do that. Seriously--it all makes sense if I narrow my mind enough, become cruel and bloodthirsty enough, hate enough. And here's the problem with that: When I narrow down that much, terrorism becomes legitimate.

Now, I'm fine with that. I'll get my duct tape and my bottled water and pretend that will save me when Al Qaeda comes, but it's all warfare to me, and decrying terrorism reminds me of the time the Redcoats were miffed because the Americans shot the officers instead of the ranks.

And that's why I'm a pacifist. I can't see the need for any of it. Because it is only when I revoke all of my human connections, all of my sympathies, empathies, catharses, compassions, kindnesses, loves, dignities, integrities and, furthermore, invoke all of my hatreds, all of my selfish desires, and the absolute value of all the cruelty I have ever known of that I can justify an Iraqi Bush War.

And there are better things to strive for in life than hatred and cruelty.

So please understand: pro-war rhetoric by itself does not bother me. But it's kind of like my opinion of Christian rhetoric--I'm waiting to hear something that is (A) new, and (B) substantial, because it seems I've heard it all before and none of it worked then and it's not working now.

It's just really irritating that you would put these arguments before me and expect any positive result. They're the kinds of points that swayed me toward advocating an invasion of Libya when I was in sixth or seventh grade, that swayed me toward advocating the atrocities against Palestinians ... if the US had gone into the Balkans back when I believed in warfare, I can honestly say that I would still be happy, because by the time we did go, it was a little late for hurrah.

Warfare is a tragedy, a cycle of violence that needs to be broken in order to be resolved. Clive Barker writes, Nothing ever begins, and I take that insight to heart because to trace the threads of our warring history back to its beginnings is impossible. But it doesn't make warfare right.

Are we the United States of America? Will we lead the world to freedom? Can we really do it by the gun?

"Live free or die" takes on a new meaning these days.
http://www.freedomforum.org/graphics/2001/11/photos/NH2000licenseplate.jpg

:m:
Tiassa :cool:

Tiassa, it took me thirty minutes to read through that post... Now let me comment on it. Im not putting quotes because we've gone into so much depth that we need to get back on track. If I miss anything, please tell me. But Im mainly doing this because it'll just make more sense for me.

-Your not for war because the United States funds those that they go to war with, and puts them in power (Saddam, Usama). Oh, and your a pacifist to.

Well, then, I agree. The US has put people into power when they knew that its a bad idea and that it would probably bite them in the ass. They probably thought that they could handle it, but they were wrong. Now look where they ended up.