Horror in Room 63 [Archive]

Chris Cuilla

12-05-2005, 06:35 PM

Originally posted by Anders
Two wrongs doesn´t make a right.

I like the idea of this man standing trial for what he did 20 years ago. But at one point you have to ask yourself the question, is it worth the torture, the civilian deaths, the deaths of our own soldiers and the general tention it has caused in that part of the world between "them" and "us"? Is it worth the degeneration of our own moral values ("What is torture really?")

You have to compare two really different and almost incomparable things: justice over this man (idealism in IR terms) and the costs (realism). Noone will ever argue that the capture and sentence of Saddam in itself is a bad thing. But seen over a broader scale is the means we had to use to get to that point made the world a better place? I have to say no.

Setting aside the bad things the U.S. has done (alleged torture and what not) for just a moment. Isn't there an old saying that goes something like:

"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

Is this statement true? False? Irrelevent?

Is it easy for us to justify doing nothing in the face of evil because of the cost of doing so is too high? Is that right? Wrong?

This seems not all the different an argument (though a reverse) that justifies torture for the sake of the good it achieves.

( Anders, not trying to rile you or anything...just trying to look at this from a different angle. )

jimmac

12-05-2005, 06:42 PM

Originally posted by Moe_in_Texas
"Men and women were tortured for days and babies left to die in an interrogation facility which featured a meat grinder for human flesh, the first prosecution witness to face Saddam Husseintold the court on Monday."

And you lefties think that it really matters that "We didn't find WMDs" ? SH was in contention for the most brutal leader since Hitler. We took him out of power while most of the World stood around with their collective thumbs up their butts. We made mistakes in this war. We made lots of mistakes, but damn it to hell we did a lot of good.

http://news.yahoo.com

It really matters Moe.

Without the issue of WMD and the " threat " the war wouldn't have happened.

Also How many other places in the world does this sort of thing go on and why didn't we attack them also?

Northgate

12-05-2005, 07:12 PM

Moe_in_Texas

12-05-2005, 07:19 PM

Originally posted by jimmac
How many other places in the world does this sort of thing go on and why didn't we attack them also?

If on my way home tonight I save a girl from being raped, should I be scorned because "There were lots of other people being abused in the city tonight and you didn't do anything to save them"?

I blame the Chinese, the Russians and the French for this war. Had they stood with the UN and demanded that SH come clean or face the music, none of this would have happened. SH thought that the French and the Russians would save him (and their economic interests). W called his bluff and we went to war.

Moe_in_Texas

12-05-2005, 07:22 PM

Originally posted by Northgate
Good men did and were doing something! They (we) had him boxed in. He was no longer a threat to his neighbors. He was no longer in a position to manufacturing WMD's of any potency or volume.

Don't try painting a picture of Saddam on the loose running rampant as that is obviously an intellectually dishonest argument.

How long were we supposed to keep him boxed in? The regime was not coming to an end. The next generation was in the green room waiting to go on.

Chris Cuilla

12-05-2005, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by Northgate
Good men did and were doing something! They (we) had him boxed in. He was no longer a threat to his neighbors.

You are artificially limiting the scope of his evil to support your argument. The testimony that was offered today had nothing to do with Iraq's "neighbors" but the people of his own country. Are we to ignore that evil? Are we to do nothing about it? Are we to simply go about our business and say "internal affairs" are none of our business?

Originally posted by Northgate
Don't try painting a picture of Saddam on the loose running rampant as that is obviously an intellectually dishonest argument.

I think that by artificially limiting the scope (of the purported evil activities), you are the one that is being "intellectually dishonest".

Anders

12-05-2005, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Setting aside the bad things the U.S. has done (alleged torture and what not) for just a moment. Isn't there an old saying that goes something like:

"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing." (Edmund Burke)

Is this statement true? False? Irrelevent?

Is it easy for us to justify doing nothing in the face of evil because of the cost of doing so is too high? Is that right? Wrong?

This seems not all the different an argument (though a reverse) that justifies torture for the sake of the good it achieves.

( Anders, not trying to rile you or anything...just trying to look at this from a different angle. )

I am not saying that there is a definitive right or wrong here (thats why I ended my post with my personal opinion instead of a universal one). But I will suggest two starting points in analyzing this, a liberal and a realistic, to see if it can be justified:

The "liberal" starting point is much like what is shown in war movies: Never leave a man behind, no matter the cost. Each person is humankind (wasn´t that Jesus who said something like that or is it from Islam) In Iraq the argument would be that everything should be done to put Saddam to justice for the torture and killing of specific innocent Iraqis in the 80s, no matter the cost. We achieved that. But it has not been without costs. A lot of people died, a lot of innocent people died that would not have died if we had been sitting on our thumbs (I am not counting our soldiers, the iraqi soldiers or insurgents. They all chose to risk their lifes). Even deaths due to insurgent activity would not have happened if we had done anything. By our action we set things in motion that causes the death of specific individuals. Other people might have suffered a grousome death had we not invaded and we saved those people from their faith. But in a liberal (in IR terms) frame you can´t substitute one life for another or you just start the circle again (have to bring justice over innocent mr. Hassan, who was killed because of the american invasion etc. etc. etc.). You can´t honestly mix the two and say "we have to bring justice to those innocent who Saddam killed because the individual is sacret and in doing so we have to sacrifice other innocent individuals". You really quickly end up as in the Burke quote but your justification has to come from somewhere else than an idealistic argument.

In a "realistic" view its all about power. Past is past and we have to act today from what we benefit from tomorrow. If we stretch it a bit the we could argue that realism look at the general good, also for the iraqis (normally realism would see what benefits your own nation over other, "relative gains") but either way realism look beyond the individual and at the whole picture. Then it could be asked on a general level, is the iraqis better of by our invasion? I really don´t think you can say anything definitive about that, it depends on how we weight different aspects of their lifes. I think its safe to say the the welfare has gone down, less freedom to the women (old traditions has taken over from the mostly secular Baath rule) and higher degree of violence and death. All that is negative. On the positive side you have more of the classic freedom, freedom of opinion and speech. I think the jury is still open on whether the benefits for the Iraqis outweights the neegative (one huge problem with the polls taken on this in Iraq is who is asked. I would really like to see a gender breakdown. I fear that the women are not asked to the same extent as men are).

Then there is the classical realistic issues: Has the Iraq war put us in a better strategic situation? I think its safe to say no to that. The war has NOT been taken to the enemy (Its not like little Hussein would have gone to Washington and blown himself to pieces there instead of 50 feet from his home), tension between US and europe (yes "you don´t need us" but to alienate ones allies can never be a plus. If you want to be more free to do whatever you want in the future alienate your allies at that point instead of cutting of possibilities from the start). Everything being equal military commitment makes you military possibilities more limited. Your economy is less strong than it could have been. And then there is the arab triangle: Dependence on Saudi oil, the need to disentangle yourself from the House of Said on human rights violations and the islamic ideologic pressure. The war in Iraq has not made that any easier to solve.

So I can´t see how in any way the war could be deemed a success in any way, even with Saddams capture and trial in mind, because you can´t separate it from its flipside.

BRussell

12-05-2005, 08:18 PM

Originally posted by Moe_in_Texas
the human rights whiners How can you make a post like your first, justifying the war on Saddam's human rights abuses, and then refer to "human rights whiners?" Are you also a human rights whiner for talking about Saddam's torturous regime?

hardeeharhar

12-05-2005, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by BRussell
How can you make a post like your first, justifying the war on Saddam's human rights abuses, and then refer to "human rights whiners?" Are you also a human rights whiner for talking about Saddam's torturous regime?

Thank you. I wouldn't have been so kind.

Northgate

12-05-2005, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
You are artificially limiting the scope of his evil to support your argument. The testimony that was offered today had nothing to do with Iraq's "neighbors" but the people of his own country. Are we to ignore that evil? Are we to do nothing about it? Are we to simply go about our business and say "internal affairs" are none of our business?

I think that by artificially limiting the scope (of the purported evil activities), you are the one that is being "intellectually dishonest".

By this standard we should be preparing a full scale invasion of North Korea, should we not? And Syria. And Iran. And...

Northgate

12-05-2005, 08:26 PM

Gilsch

12-05-2005, 09:18 PM

Originally posted by Northgate
ZING! I was thinking more along the lines of....nah, not worth it. I assure you it was funny, witty and appropo though. :D

e1618978

12-05-2005, 09:55 PM

Originally posted by Northgate
By this standard we should be preparing a full scale invasion of North Korea, should we not? And Syria. And Iran. And...

I agree - when do we start?

Gene Clean

12-05-2005, 10:30 PM

Originally posted by e1618978
I agree - when do we start?

Soon as you take your military fatigues, and start rolling yourself there.

Lupa

12-05-2005, 10:57 PM

Originally posted by Moe_in_Texas
If on my way home tonight I save a girl from being raped, should I be scorned because "There were lots of other people being abused in the city tonight and you didn't do anything to save them"?

This is simply a bad analogy. In this example, you have a general knowledge that rapes happen in your city, but you do not know who is committing the rapes. Therefor, no one can reasonably chastise you for not preventing the other rapes. However, the fact that atrocities are committed in many other countries is common knowledge. The identities of said countries are also known. If we use humanitarian concerns as the basis for this war and the subsequent reformation of Iraq, it is very reasonable to suspect that we should do (and are almost obligated to do) the same thing elsewhere.

Powerdoc

12-06-2005, 02:12 AM

Originally posted by Moe_in_Texas

I blame the Chinese, the Russians and the French for this war. Had they stood with the UN and demanded that SH come clean or face the music, none of this would have happened. SH thought that the French and the Russians would save him (and their economic interests). W called his bluff and we went to war.

Don't try to re-write history.

All the members of the UN asked SH to comply with the UN resolution aka "Iraq is not allowed to have WOMD, and Iraq have to let inspectors do their work". USA said that they was convinced, that Iraq has WOMD, and thus waiting was a loss of time. Going in war immediatly was the only way for the Bush admin. Some countries followed USA, by conviction, by friendship or byfear to piss them. Quite a few where not convinced at all by the WOMD thing.

There wasn't any resolution about invading Iraq for humanitarian reasons. The humanitarian reasons, was given by the Bush admin to american people to back this decision.

Get ridded of SH is not a bad thing in itself, but it's unfortunate that there is more terrorism in Iraq than ever, especially if we consider that making the war against Iraq was supposed to prevent more terrorism.

addabox

12-06-2005, 02:32 AM

Originally posted by Lupa
This is simply a bad analogy. In this example, you have a general knowledge that rapes happen in your city, but you do not know who is committing the rapes. Therefor, no one can reasonably chastise you for not preventing the other rapes. However, the fact that atrocities are committed in many other countries is common knowledge. The identities of said countries are also known. If we use humanitarian concerns as the basis for this war and the subsequent reformation of Iraq, it is very reasonable to suspect that we should do (and are almost obligated to do) the same thing elsewhere.

I think the analogy Moe is looking for goes as follows:

After a killing spree linked to a particular crime boss in our hypothetical city, the police abruptly cease seeking that crime boss in order to deal with a different crime boss who, it is claimed, is about to flood the market with lethally potent heroin.

The mayor explains that the previous killing spree was an example of "crime" run rampant, and so "crime" will no longer be tolerated, starting with the heroin ring.

No explanation is offered for why other crime bosses who sell heroin are tolerated. No explanation is offered for why resources are being diverted when those responsible for the killing spree are still at large.

After smashing down the doors and setting fire to the building it is discovered that there is no heroin.

The mayor pauses, then says: "Well, they were also rapists".

jimmac

12-06-2005, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by Moe_in_Texas
If on my way home tonight I save a girl from being raped, should I be scorned because "There were lots of other people being abused in the city tonight and you didn't do anything to save them"?

I blame the Chinese, the Russians and the French for this war. Had they stood with the UN and demanded that SH come clean or face the music, none of this would have happened. SH thought that the French and the Russians would save him (and their economic interests). W called his bluff and we went to war.

Totally different situation. That's one on one where you aren't taking a bunch of people with you and are making the decision for yourself. This war was fought on the stage of the world not by an individual. Bad analogy. Also a war based on false information ( the little girl was really a small man with a wig ). There's really only one person you can blame after you eliminate the people who work for him.;)

jimmac

12-06-2005, 08:56 AM

Originally posted by Powerdoc
Don't try to re-write history.

All the members of the UN asked SH to comply with the UN resolution aka "Iraq is not allowed to have WOMD, and Iraq have to let inspectors do their work". USA said that they was convinced, that Iraq has WOMD, and thus waiting was a loss of time. Going in war immediatly was the only way for the Bush admin. Some countries followed USA, by conviction, by friendship or fear to piss them. Quite a few where not convinced at all by the WOMD thing.

There wasn't any resolution about invading Iraq for humanitarian reasons. The humanitarian reasons, was given by the Bush admin to american people to back this decision.

Get ridded of SH is not a bad thing in itself, but it's unfortunate that there is more terrorism in Iraq than ever, especially if we consider that making the war against Iraq was supposed to prevent more terrorism.

Well said!

jimmac

12-06-2005, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by addabox
I think the analogy Moe is looking for goes as follows:

After a killing spree linked to a particular crime boss in our hypothetical city, the police abruptly cease seeking that crime boss in order to deal with a different crime boss who, it is claimed, is about to flood the market with lethally potent heroin.

The mayor explains that the previous killing spree was an example of "crime" run rampant, and so "crime" will no longer be tolerated, starting with the heroin ring.

No explanation is offered for why other crime bosses who sell heroin are tolerated. No explanation is offered for why resources are being diverted when those responsible for the killing spree are still at large.

After smashing down the doors and setting fire to the building it is discovered that there is no heroin.

The mayor pauses, then says: "Well, they were also rapists".

:lol:

Moe_in_Texas

12-06-2005, 09:38 AM

"All of the human rights whiners moaning about a terrorist with panties on his head"

Don't consider them sincere. Fake human rights folks.

hardeeharhar

12-06-2005, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by Moe_in_Texas
"All of the human rights whiners moaning about a terrorist with panties on his head"

Don't consider them sincere. Fake human rights folks.

Actually, they would be the ones who universally apply the human rights schtick to all conditions, wheras you pick and choose. In that sense, you aren't sincere.

Moe_in_Texas

12-06-2005, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Actually, they would be the ones who universally apply the human rights schtick to all conditions, wheras you pick and choose. In that sense, you aren't sincere.

Many of the bellyachers I am referring to are motivated by their hatred for the President, not their care for humanity.

Northgate

12-06-2005, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by Moe_in_Texas
Many of the bellyachers I am referring to are motivated by their hatred for the President, not their care for humanity.

Is this truly your opinion or just regurgitation of the Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly rhetoric? I don't "hate" the president. But I am desperate to see this administration replaced with a Democratic one.

Moe_in_Texas

12-06-2005, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by Northgate
Is this truly your opinion or just regurgitation of the Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly rhetoric? I don't "hate" the president. But I am desperate to see this administration replaced with a Democratic one.

Perhaps many don't hate him as a person, but there is little limit to what they will do do topple him. They stand in the wings waiting for any little mole hill that they hope to cultivate into a mountain.

sammi jo

12-06-2005, 01:57 PM

Moe. You conveniently forget under who's watch, support and approval that the vast majority of this ghastly stuff happened. You got it... The Reagan Adminstration, 1980-1988, and the first half of the Bush Sr. adminstration. Many of the same psychopaths who fill the current adminstration's senior positions were formulating US foreign policy back then.

Saddam was our bitch, Moe. He was a U.S. lackey against the Iranians (who have btw never attacked the U.S.).

With this knowledge, do you now approve of Saddam Hussein? Wasn't he a Pro US hero? If you are a patriot, perhaps you should consider the notion.

Anders

12-06-2005, 02:02 PM

Originally posted by sammi jo
Moe. You conveniently forget under who's watch, support and approval that the vast majority of this ghastly stuff happened. You got it... The Reagan Adminstration, 1980-1988, and the first half of the Bush Sr. adminstration. Many of the same psychopaths who fill the current adminstration's senior positions were formulating US foreign policy back then.

Saddam was our bitch, Moe. He was a U.S. lackey against the Iranians (who have btw never attacked the U.S.).

With this knowledge, do you now approve of Saddam Hussein? Wasn't he a Pro US hero? If you are a patriot, perhaps you should consider the notion.

That isn´t really importent in deciding how to deal with Saddam today. Are you suggesting that you should stand shoulder to shoulder with Saddam because you supported him in the past?

e1618978

12-06-2005, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by sammi jo
the Iranians (who have btw never attacked the U.S.)

The US embassy in Iran counts as US soil - the Iranians have attacked us there.

Gene Clean

12-06-2005, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by e1618978
The US embassy in Iran counts as US soil - the Iranians have attacked us there.

That was a different regime. If nothing was done then - it's hardly honest to do something about it today. Especially as it wasn't an "attack" on the military sense, although it was a brute violation of international law.

sammi jo

12-06-2005, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by Anders
That isn´t really importent in deciding how to deal with Saddam today. Are you suggesting that you should stand shoulder to shoulder with Saddam because you supported him in the past?

The civilized way of dealing with Saddam Hussein and Iraq was firstly to allow the inspectors to finish their work, and determine for sure what the intelligence services already knew, that being Iraq had no WMDs since 1992. This would have forced the Bush Administration into being more forthcoming as to the real reasons for invading. Given some real facts, as opposed to blatant lies, would US lawmakers have been able to make an informed set of decisions re. Iraq.

As a result of "dealing with Saddam today" as you put it, the US coalition is responsible for a massacre of 100,000+ men, women and children in just 2.5 years....a faster killing rate than our old buddy Saddam achieved during the Reagan and BushSr. years.

BRussell

12-06-2005, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by Gene Clean
That was a different regime. No it wasn't.

Gene Clean

12-06-2005, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by BRussell
No it wasn't.

The ideology might be the same today, but the regime, as embodied by the Government, President, and Parliament was different.

Ideology != Regime.

Chris Cuilla

12-06-2005, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by sammi jo
the US coalition is responsible for a massacre of 100,000+ men, women and children

I think that you should mention that a significant portion of that 100,000 number (assuming it is accurate) were Iraqi military solidiers who were given ample warning, time and opportunity to surrender.

This does not justify the invasion in the first place...but it refines the information about what you are saying.

Northgate

12-06-2005, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by Moe_in_Texas
Perhaps many don't hate him as a person, but there is little limit to what they will do do topple him. They stand in the wings waiting for any little mole hill that they hope to cultivate into a mountain.

I highly recommend watching "The Hunting of a President" for another perspective on cultivating a mole hill into a mountain.

While I don't advocate a two-wrongs-make-right ideology, it should give you perspective into how much ado can made out of literally nothing. Which is dramatically different then pinning the president with dramatizing evidence in order to wage war.

e1618978

12-06-2005, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by Gene Clean
The ideology might be the same today, but the regime, as embodied by the Government, President, and Parliament was different.

Ideology != Regime.

So every time you elect a new president, all other countries in the world have to give you a clean slate - because the country has new management?

Not bloody likely.

Gene Clean

12-06-2005, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by e1618978
So every time you elect a new president, all other countries in the world have to give you a clean slate - because the country has new management?

Not bloody likely.

No, but if you didn't do anything about it 30 years ago, it's a little.. late to bring it up now? I mean, where were you 30 years ago? Shit, where were you 10 years ago?

Now that it fits within a certain agenda, now you remember the Iranian Revolution? Uh-huh.

BRussell

12-06-2005, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by Gene Clean
The ideology might be the same today, but the regime, as embodied by the Government, President, and Parliament was different.

Ideology != Regime. Today isn't even the relevant comparison. Khomeini was still alive and in power when we supported Iraq against Iran.

e1618978

12-06-2005, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by Gene Clean
No, but if you didn't do anything about it 30 years ago, it's a little.. late to bring it up now? I mean, where were you 30 years ago? Shit, where were you 10 years ago?

Now that it fits within a certain agenda, now you remember the Iranian Revolution? Uh-huh.

I'm not suggesting that it is a rationale for attack now. I am just rebutting the following two points

1. They never attacked us
2. It was a different government in power then, so no harm no foul

both of which are BS.

Gon

12-06-2005, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by Moe_in_Texas
Many of the bellyachers I am referring to are motivated by their hatred for the President, not their care for humanity. When you can't attack the message, attack the messenger, huh?

Moe_in_Texas

12-06-2005, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by Gon
When you can't attack the message, attack the messenger, huh?

This was not directed at anyone in particular. Noone is being attacked. What message would you like me to address?

midwinter

12-06-2005, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by Moe_in_Texas
And you lefties think that it really matters that "We didn't find WMDs" ?

Yes.

SH was in contention for the most brutal leader since Hitler.

Bah. Pol Pot was WAAAAAY worse. So was Stalin.

We took him out of power

Iran took care of the hard parts.

while most of the World stood around with their collective thumbs up their butts.

You forgot Poland!

We made mistakes in this war. We made lots of mistakes, but damn it to hell we did a lot of good.

Whatever lets you sleep at night. 43 people died in Baghdad last night. 70 wounded (maimed)

Moe_in_Texas

12-06-2005, 04:17 PM

Iraq turned into a mess because we disbanded their military and lost control of the situation. Had we not made that mistake, those folks would not have been blown up last night. The war was right, the approach was flawed.

sammi jo

12-06-2005, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I think that you should mention that a significant portion of that 100,000 number (assuming it is accurate) were Iraqi military solidiers who were given ample warning, time and opportunity to surrender.

This does not justify the invasion in the first place...but it refines the information about what you are saying.

No, we're talking Iraqi civilians here: That study was widely reported, even in the US corporate "media".

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/iraq.deaths/

CNN were pro-war cheerleaders by the way... like the rest of the "liberal media". :rolleyes:

Gene Clean

12-06-2005, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by BRussell
Today isn't even the relevant comparison. Khomeini was still alive and in power when we supported Iraq against Iran.

Which goes to show that US interests lie elsewhere. We supported Iraq against Iran to avoid the dirty work. Now that the dirty work has been done... someone is suggesting that we go ahead and do it again?!

I mean, I see your point, and it's a valid one, but I just don't buy the 'they attacked us in 1979, so let's take revenge in 2005' meme, which you didn't say, I know.

e#s,

fair enough. Though I still don't know of kidnapping embassy workers qualifies as an attack. Maybe it does, I need to dig up those old rules sometime soon.. :p

Gon

12-06-2005, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by Moe_in_Texas
This was not directed at anyone in particular. Noone is being attacked.Oh really?Also originally posted by Moe
"All of the human rights whiners moaning about a terrorist with panties on his head"
Many of the bellyachers I am referring to are motivated by their hatred for the President, not their care for humanity.Frankly, it looks like you are pretty specific about who your comment is directed to. I read that as directed to anyone who would point out that mistreatment of a US prisoner is, in fact, mistreatment.What message would you like me to address?Dunno. I just assumed there was one you can't or won't address properly, since if you could, there would be no reason to go for the ad hominem angle.

Anders

12-06-2005, 04:47 PM

To tell the truth the number is between 8000 and 192000 with 95% certainty. In other words, the study is statistical useless. And I don´t even want to think about the collection of the numbers (counted deaths by going from house to house in areas where the collectors was able to come. Not exactly what are teached as the perfect collection of data).

Even if it somehow doesn´t include military deaths its still useless.

e1618978

12-06-2005, 05:21 PM

Originally posted by Gene Clean
Though I still don't know of kidnapping embassy workers qualifies as an attack. Maybe it does, I need to dig up those old rules sometime soon.. :p

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis

"On November 1, 1979 Iran's new leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini urged his people to demonstrate against United States and Israeli interests. Ruhollah Khomeini was virulently anti-American in his rhetoric, denouncing the American government as the "Great Satan" and "Enemies of Islam".

Thousands of them gathered around the U.S. embassy in Tehran, protesting. The embassy grounds had been briefly occupied before, during the revolution, and protest crowds outside the fence were common. Iranian police were less and less helpful. On November 4, amid another chaotic occupation of the grounds, a mob of around 500 Iranian students calling themselves the Imam's Disciples (although reported numbers vary from 300 to 2000) seized the main embassy building. The token guard of Marines was thoroughly outnumbered, and staff rushed to destroy communications equipment and sensitive documents. Out of 90 occupants, 66 were taken captive, including three who were taken from the Iranian Foreign Ministry."

That is an attack.

After re-reading the wikipedia article, it seems pretty clear that we should never again elect a pussy like Carter. A guy like Bush would invaded, the hostages would have been killed, but it would have deterred future stuff like 9/11.

Anders

12-06-2005, 05:32 PM

Yes. Its good Reagan did put them in their place. Twice.

Triestino

12-06-2005, 05:46 PM

Originally posted by e1618978
A guy like Bush would invaded, the hostages would have been killed, but it would have deterred future stuff like 9/11. Did you ever consider that 9/11 happened because people don't like the US not because there was no sense of deterrence. Maybe you are simply too unaccustomed to terrorism.

Moe_in_Texas

12-06-2005, 06:03 PM

Triestino, the World would be a better place if everyone thought like you, but they don’t. Until all World leaders are peaceniks, other leaders have responsibility to their citizens to keep the folks safe. The War on Terror in all of its dimensions is a necessary war to keep Americans safe from those who want to kill us. We have a right to go where we need to go and do what we need to do to protect our interests at home and abroad. I am sorry if the whiny UN couldn’t find a consensus. Our well being will not be determined by a band of corrupt UN lefties.

(This was a reply to the message you deleted, Triestino)

Triestino

12-06-2005, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by Moe_in_Texas
Triestino, the World would be a better place if everyone thought like you, but they don’t. Until all World leaders are peaceniks, other leaders have responsibility to their citizens to keep the folks safe. The War on Terror in all of its dimensions is a necessary war to keep Americans safe from those who want to kill us. We have a right to go where we need to go and do what we need to do to protect our interests at home and abroad. I am sorry if the whiny UN couldn’t find a consensus. Our well being will not be determined by a band of corrupt UN lefties. You have never been less safe, you have never been more dangerous and 9/11 needed a mature response. Aghanistan was and Iraq wasn't and many will die because the US hasn't realised the limits of force.

Moe_in_Texas

12-06-2005, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by Triestino
Did you ever consider that 9/11 happened because people don't like the US not because there was no sense of deterrence. Maybe you are simply too unaccustomed to terrorism.

If they hate us so much maybe they shouldn't have their hands out the next time the earth tries to swallow one of their countries.

Flounder

12-06-2005, 06:26 PM

Originally posted by Moe_in_Texas
If they hate us so much maybe they shouldn't have their hands out the next time the earth tries to swallow one of their countries.

You do realize Pakistan is an ally, right?

Oh wait, that's right, it's only one of "those" countries........ :no:

Yikes, man, that racism bubbling under the surface is about to explode! :lol:

e1618978

12-06-2005, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by Triestino
Did you ever consider that 9/11 happened because people don't like the US not because there was no sense of deterrence. Maybe you are simply too unaccustomed to terrorism.

Yes - but I rejected it. We pulled out of Somolia, and 9/11 was a direct result of our wimpyness. People thought that they could push us around and we would not do anything.

Triestino

12-06-2005, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by e1618978
We pulled out of Somolia, and 9/11 was a direct result of our wimpyness. 9/11 happened (probably) because your internal security services were poor, didn't think outside the box (it was innovative mass murder - terrible but innovative) and didn't share leads. Invading other countries doesn't make you scarier to terrorists, just to allies.

e1618978

12-06-2005, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by Triestino
9/11 happened (probably) because your internal security services were poor, didn't think outside the box (it was innovative mass murder - terrible but innovative) and didn't share leads. Invading other countries doesn't make you scarier to terrorists, just to allies.

Afghanistan was a state run by the terrorists that perpetrated 9/11. They thought that we would not retaliate - and for that you can put the blame square on Clinton and Carter.

Moe_in_Texas

12-06-2005, 07:11 PM

When did I mention Pakistan?

"Oh wait, that's right, it's only one of "those" countries........

Yikes, man, that racism bubbling under the surface is about to explode!"

Huh?

sammi jo

12-06-2005, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by e1618978
Afghanistan was a state run by the terrorists that perpetrated 9/11. They thought that we would not retaliate.

That is nonsense. Even if you've been hoodwinked by the officially sanctioned conspiracy theory:
(1) The alleged "hijackers" supposedly comprised 15 Saudi Arabians, an Egyptian, a Morroccan and a Yemeni. No Afghans (or Iraqis or Iranians) were involved.
(2) Osama bin Laden's money, according to the US and foreign intelligence services, was not involved in the financing of the operation. In the year leading up to 9-11, bin Laden's whereabouts was unknown apart from the time he was visited in hospital in Dubai by CIA field agents aboard a US Navy helicopter, some 3 monmths before the 9-11 attacks, in June of 2001. (Perhaps the Dubai authorities should have been brought to task for harboring a wanted terrorist.....)
(3) The money which has been linked to funding the 9-11 operation came from Mahmud Ahmed, the former head of the Pakistani ISI, who wired several 6-figure sums to Mohamed Atta, the alleged ringleader, in the months leading up to the attacks. Mahmud Ahmed, incidentally, was in a secret meeting on the 4th floor of the Capitol in D.C. on the morning of 9-11, with current CIA chief Porter Goss and Senator Bob Graham (!?).

So, just what is the connection between 9-11 and Afghanistan? The answer looks like "less than pretty much every other country in the neighborhood, and more like lots of hot air, and lots of unsubstantiated White House approved speculation in the media".

jimmac

12-06-2005, 08:10 PM

Originally posted by Moe_in_Texas
Perhaps many don't hate him as a person, but there is little limit to what they will do do topple him. They stand in the wings waiting for any little mole hill that they hope to cultivate into a mountain.

It could be anyone in his place. It's not so much that we hate him as we hate what he does.

This war was one of those things.

jimmac

12-06-2005, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by Moe_in_Texas
Iraq turned into a mess because we disbanded their military and lost control of the situation. Had we not made that mistake, those folks would not have been blown up last night. The war was right, the approach was flawed.

Yeah that's it just throw more lives at the problem.:rolleyes:

jimmac

12-06-2005, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by e1618978
Afghanistan was a state run by the terrorists that perpetrated 9/11. They thought that we would not retaliate - and for that you can put the blame square on Clinton and Carter.

:lol:

Boy that's rich!

As long as you are looking into the past maybe we could bring up Lyndon Johnson as well!

:lol:

jimmac

12-06-2005, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by e1618978
Yes - but I rejected it. We pulled out of Somolia, and 9/11 was a direct result of our wimpyness. People thought that they could push us around and we would not do anything.

Pssst! Maybe Bush should have been reading that memo on his desk about OBL using airplanes as weapons.
;)

e1618978

12-06-2005, 08:39 PM

Originally posted by jimmac
Pssst! Maybe Bush should have been reading that memo on his desk about OBL using airplanes as weapons.
;)

Too bad he was not aggressive and paranoid then like he is now - we should have elected somebody even more like Bush than Bush, he was too passive before 9/11 - kind of like Carter and Clinton.

I don't understand the Lyndon Johnson reference...

jimmac

12-06-2005, 08:44 PM

Originally posted by e1618978
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis

"On November 1, 1979 Iran's new leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini urged his people to demonstrate against United States and Israeli interests. Ruhollah Khomeini was virulently anti-American in his rhetoric, denouncing the American government as the "Great Satan" and "Enemies of Islam".

Thousands of them gathered around the U.S. embassy in Tehran, protesting. The embassy grounds had been briefly occupied before, during the revolution, and protest crowds outside the fence were common. Iranian police were less and less helpful. On November 4, amid another chaotic occupation of the grounds, a mob of around 500 Iranian students calling themselves the Imam's Disciples (although reported numbers vary from 300 to 2000) seized the main embassy building. The token guard of Marines was thoroughly outnumbered, and staff rushed to destroy communications equipment and sensitive documents. Out of 90 occupants, 66 were taken captive, including three who were taken from the Iranian Foreign Ministry."

That is an attack.

After re-reading the wikipedia article, it seems pretty clear that we should never again elect a pussy like Carter. A guy like Bush would invaded, the hostages would have been killed, but it would have deterred future stuff like 9/11.

You mean the guy who couldn't gracefully excuse himself from reading to little kids and do his job while people were dying?

I'll bet Carter wouldn't have just sat there with an expression that could only be discribed as a deer in the headlights.

e1618978

12-06-2005, 08:49 PM

Originally posted by jimmac
You mean the guy who couldn't gracefully excuse himself from reading to little kids and do his job while people were dying?

I'll bet Carter wouldn't have just sat there with an expression that could only be discribed as a deer in the headlights.

Thinking quickly on your feet is nessessary for a soccer player, but I think that other qualities are more important in a president.

Carter would have tried to negotiate, and would have made the problem worse by being weak and making us all targets.

Gon

12-06-2005, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by Moe_in_Texas
We have a right to go where we need to go and do what we need to do to protect our interests at home and abroad.So you have a "right" to do absolutely anything abroad as long as it is to protect your interests.

Interesting right you got there. Don't random yahoos then have a corresponding right to come to the US to protect their interests by blowing shit up?

e1618978

12-06-2005, 09:09 PM

Originally posted by Gon
So you have a "right" to do absolutely anything abroad as long as it is to protect your interests.

Interesting right you got there. Don't random yahoos then have a corresponding right to come to the US to protect their interests by blowing shit up?

International law has always been about "might makes right", tempered by risk aversion. State leaders have the responsibility to make your citizens prosperous and safe, and that responsibility trumps whatever cost to life and limb that foreigners in enemy states must endure.

Northgate

12-06-2005, 09:09 PM

Originally posted by e1618978
Afghanistan was a state run by the terrorists that perpetrated 9/11. They thought that we would not retaliate - and for that you can put the blame square on Clinton and Carter.

Man, if you guys were only as good at waging war as you were at attacking your own fellow countrymen we'd be in great shape!

The Blame-Ameria's-Ex-President's-First crowd. Gotta love 'em.

e1618978

12-06-2005, 09:11 PM

Originally posted by Northgate
Man, if you guys were only as good at waging war as you were at attacking your own fellow countrymen we'd be in great shape!

We are great at attacking, just not at planning - the only problem was that general who said "invading and holding Iraq required 300K soldiers" was fired. The idea was great, the implementation sucked rocks.

If Clinton and Carter were better at waging war, the whole world would be in much better shape now. I thought that telling people that you are not allowed to criticize the president was a Republican thing - you guys are really shooting blanks for the last few posts.

Gene Clean

12-06-2005, 09:23 PM

If Clinton and Carter were better at waging war, the whole world would be in much better shape now.

:err:

Gon

12-06-2005, 09:40 PM

Originally posted by e1618978
International law has always been about "might makes right", tempered by risk aversion. State leaders have the responsibility to make your citizens prosperous and safe, and that responsibility trumps whatever cost to life and limb that foreigners in enemy states must endure. So you agree that if someone can topple WTC, and wants to do it, he's perfectly within his rights to do it? (Obviously, might is nothing more than ability to cause something against others' will, and prosperity is subjective and for some folks its definition might include many dead Americans.)

edit: sorry, I didn't pay attention to the words "international law" which usually, and also in this case, read as an euphemism for bullshit. There is no international law. There is a collection of treaties, which are generally very loose towards the participating states. Even in the event that a treaty should name repercussions should a state break it, the only course of enforcement is war, and it is only taken in an extreme case.
State leaders have exactly the kind of responsibility they themselves assume, are assigned by the voters, or are held to after things go wrong. There is no cookie-cutter responsibility for leaders of state. As for the actions you choose to take, you might be able to escape legal punishment. You might also be able to thwart individuals that think you've done wrong enough to warrant some vigilante justice. What you cannot escape is that you did the things you did out of your free will. This goes for everyone. You can't hide from reality behind authority, responsibility, armed men, a vow, a lawyer or anything else.

From the legal viewpoint, at least in the US the declaration of independence clearly prohibits paying for things with foreigners' lifes and limbs.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

midwinter

12-06-2005, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by e1618978
If Clinton and Carter were better at waging war, the whole world would be in much better shape now.

Huh? Every time Clinton bombed something or sent troops in, the right squealed like a stuck pig.

addabox

12-06-2005, 11:15 PM

Triestino

12-07-2005, 02:42 AM

Originally posted by e1618978
International law has always been about "might makes right", tempered by risk aversion. State leaders have the responsibility to make your citizens prosperous and safe, and that responsibility trumps whatever cost to life and limb that foreigners in enemy states must endure. Just step back and look at yourself. International law is about trying to live in a decent world where as few people as possible get screwed. There are mercifully few occasions when people need to take things into their own hands - Srebrenica in Bosnia is one which springs to mind when UN (Dutch) troops failed to protect the town and thousands of civilians were massacred by Serbs. At least the Sebs are now before the UN court in the Netherlands (and as a postscript, the whole Dutch government resigned becuase they were ashamed at their failure to protect the Bosnians - now that is decency)

You are advocating invading a sovereign state (foreigners, yeah) which had practically nothing to do with the guys that kicked your ass. You are aware, aren't you, that your own CIA believe the Iraqis had PRACTICALLY nothing to do with 9/11?

The US has become mean spirited, selfish and unreliable.The sort of comments I'm reading above will come back to haunt you because you guys just never managed to agree a workable consensus. It's like dealing with an upset 2 year old, except US tantrums cost lives. I feel sorry for the guys who did not vote for Bush - the Bush voters can live with the choice they made, but the others have to live with the consequences too.

After 9/11, the whole world backed the US, everyone felt outrage, sympathy, anger at what had happened. I can remember the day as if it were yesterday, I remember speaking to NYC colleagues who had friends and acquaintances who died. Look at the legacy that has been squandered since then - could this has been handled ANY worse?

Moe_in_Texas

12-07-2005, 07:56 AM

A big problem is that we are being soft. The left has tied one hand behind the military's back. The President should make a stand for what has to be done. We need a tuffer approach in Iraq and Iraq will not suceed until Syria and Iran are dealt with one way or the other.

Triestino

12-07-2005, 08:01 AM

I am just not sure about how you charcterise left and right; we need to look beyond the labels.

Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism whether we're tough with them or not - Syria and Iran are bad regimes but you can't invade everybody. The rule of law by the rule of the gun doesn't work - we need to be helping create democracies , civil societies and tolerance. If that sounds fluffy to some ears I'm sorry to hear it - shooting people (or indeed torturing them) and occupying nations just isn't a viable alteranative.

jimmac

12-07-2005, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by e1618978
Too bad he was not aggressive and paranoid then like he is now - we should have elected somebody even more like Bush than Bush, he was too passive before 9/11 - kind of like Carter and Clinton.

I don't understand the Lyndon Johnson reference...

It was a joke. Bringing up things from the past to pass the blame is ridiculous.

Also this is the same Bush.

Please! When he did become aggressive he did things that were totally ineffective with regard to this sitiuation.

At least Clinton and Carter would have addressed the situation.:p

jimmac

12-07-2005, 08:17 AM

Originally posted by e1618978
Thinking quickly on your feet is nessessary for a soccer player, but I think that other qualities are more important in a president.

Carter would have tried to negotiate, and would have made the problem worse by being weak and making us all targets.

" Thinking quickly on your feet is nessessary for a soccer player, but I think that other qualities are more important in a president. "

You've got to be kidding?
:no:

He should have quietly excused himself and moved to a less public place so he could " take charge " and at least been updated directly of the situation. Even if he couldn't bring himself to make decisions.

He didn't catch OSB. He bombed the hell out of a suspected country and bombed the hell out of another that had nothing to do with the situation.

You have no way of knowing what Carter would have done.

However we do know what Bush did.

Nothing.

e1618978

12-07-2005, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by midwinter
Huh? Every time Clinton bombed something or sent troops in, the right squealed like a stuck pig.

And they were wrong to do so. I'm not anti-democrat, I am pro-war.

War, waged well (not like Bush has done), is a great force for human progress in the world. We need to work towards democracy in every non-democratic country, and I don't think that anything but war is up to that challange.

Hassan i Sabbah

12-07-2005, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by e1618978
War, waged well is a great force for human progress in the world.
We need a smilie in a noose.

Chris Cuilla

12-07-2005, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by sammi jo
No, we're talking Iraqi civilians here: That study was widely reported, even in the US corporate "media".

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/29/iraq.deaths/

CNN were pro-war cheerleaders by the way... like the rest of the "liberal media". :rolleyes:

First, you realize that this number in the article is an estimate (educated one perhaps, but an estimate).

"There has been no official figure for the number of Iraqis killed since the conflict began 18 months ago, but some non-government estimates have ranged from 10,000 to 30,000."

"Even with a 1.5-times increase in deaths since the invasion, the number of deaths would be more than 98,000, although this estimate would be much greater if Falluja data is included, the study showed."

Also, do you know what the normal, average death rate is worldwide? It is estimated to be around 9 persons per 1,000 people per year. In a nation of 25,000,000 people, that is about 25,000's and at about 9 persons per 1,000 people per year, then, on average in a 12 month period, 225,000 people would die in Iraq. In the 18-month period referred to in the article, the number would be 337,000.

Now, I am not saying that the risk of death is not greater in Iraq. The article states that and I believe it is certainly true. But when tossing out statistics like that, it is important to mention what the "norm" is in order to understand what the effective change has been.

It is also possible that the death rate in Iraq was higher or lower than the worldwide average (previous to the war). That would need to be factored in.

Moe_in_Texas

12-07-2005, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by sammi jo:

"No, we're talking Iraqi civilians here: That study was widely reported, even in the US corporate "media".

Most of the terrorists are civilians.

hardeeharhar

12-07-2005, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
First, you realize that this number in the article is an estimate (educated one perhaps, but an estimate).

"There has been no official figure for the number of Iraqis killed since the conflict began 18 months ago, but some non-government estimates have ranged from 10,000 to 30,000."

"Even with a 1.5-times increase in deaths since the invasion, the number of deaths would be more than 98,000, although this estimate would be much greater if Falluja data is included, the study showed."

Also, do you know what the normal, average death rate is worldwide? It is estimated to be around 9 persons per 1,000 people per year. In a nation of 25,000,000 people, that is about 25,000's and at about 9 persons per 1,000 people per year, then, on average in a 12 month period, 225,000 people would die in Iraq. In the 18-month period referred to in the article, the number would be 337,000.

Now, I am not saying that the risk of death is not greater in Iraq. The article states that and I believe it is certainly true. But when tossing out statistics like that, it is important to mention what the "norm" is in order to understand what the effective change has been.

It is also possible that the death rate in Iraq was higher or lower than the worldwide average (previous to the war). That would need to be factored in.

I think a 25% increase in the number of dead over the course of 18 months is significant... don't you?

Chris Cuilla

12-07-2005, 01:29 PM

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
I think a 25% increase in the number of dead over the course of 18 months is significant... don't you?

The articles didn't say that it was 100,000 additional...it simply estimates 100,000.

sammi jo

12-07-2005, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
The articles didn't say that it was 100,000 additional...it simply estimates 100,000.

My my... one would have thought that the supporters of the war against Moslims, aka the "War against Terror" would be crowing about killing 100,000 of the hated ones, rather than being embarrassed by, or in denial of it.

Chris Cuilla

12-07-2005, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by sammi jo
My my... one would have thought that the supporters of the war against Moslims, aka the "War against Terror" would be crowing about killing 100,000 of the hated ones, rather than being embarrassed by, or in denial of it.

Are you implying that I would be pleased for 100,000 of anyone (Muslim or otherwise) to have been killed? Are you creating a distraction here?

hardeeharhar

12-07-2005, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
The articles didn't say that it was 100,000 additional...it simply estimates 100,000.

Now you are just being foolish.

It is estimated that the population of the US is 300 Million. I guess it is ok if we ignore that number and talk about the 120 Million people that have been counted directly and ignore the 180 million who are just estimated to exist...

Please.

Chris Cuilla

12-07-2005, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Now you are just being foolish.

It is estimated that the population of the US is 300 Million. I guess it is ok if we ignore that number and talk about the 120 Million people that have been counted directly and ignore the 180 million who are just estimated to exist...

Please.

No. But it still must be recognized as an estimate. Depending on the estimating approach the estimate can be highly accurate or not. The article also included much lower estimates as well ("There has been no official figure for the number of Iraqis killed since the conflict began 18 months ago, but some non-government estimates have ranged from 10,000 to 30,000.").

sammi jo

12-07-2005, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by Moe_in_Texas
Originally posted by sammi jo:

"No, we're talking Iraqi civilians here: That study was widely reported, even in the US corporate "media".

Most of the terrorists are civilians.

And if, say, the Chinese Air Force (for example) started bombing and strafing your Texas city, and there were Chinese troops demanding your ID at gunpoint wherever you went, and there were Chinese tanks in your streets, and your neighbor's kids were being killed by Chinese cluster bombs, etc etc, I guess there is a good chance, if you were a patriotic American that is, that you would be pissed off enough to maybe have a go at the invaders. Should you have been in France during WW2, would you have joined the Résistance, or would you have sided with the invading Germans out of convenience? (they did appear to be the hands-down winners at the time).

Most of the "terrorists" as you describe them are regular Iraqi people who are incensed at having foreigners wrecking their infrastructure, insulting their women, disrespecting their traditions and torturing their menfolk. There are some 100 or more separate Iraqi groups, many with little in common, which comprise the insurgency. When it comes down to the wire, I think you (most people) would probably do the same.

It is amazing that so many people, including BushCorp appeared to forget, that when people get attacked, they tend to fight back.

Chris Cuilla

12-07-2005, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by sammi jo
Most of the "terrorists" as you describe them are regular Iraqi people who are incensed at having foreigners wrecking their infrastructure, insulting their women, disrespecting their traditions and torturing their menfolk. There are some 100 or more separate Iraqi groups, many with little in common, which comprise the insurgency.

What is your source for these facts?

sammi jo

12-07-2005, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Are you implying that I would be pleased for 100,000 of anyone (Muslim or otherwise) to have been killed? Are you creating a distraction here?

Not you personally of course.

But in our requirement for a publicly visible enemy (or bogeyman) since the demise of the Soviet Union, combined with the endemic Islamophobia within the Neocon movement (which has the greatest say in current US foreign policy)... it is not a stretch to see how those responsible for formulating it would be almost dissastisfied with the results so far. 100,000 dead Iraqis are probably nowhere near enough for the Neocon hawks. If they are prepared to sacrifice 3000 American lives to get their program into gear, then 100,000 Iraqis is small change. Anyway, aren't all Muslims potential terrorists anyway, according to the Neocon philosophy?

Outsider

12-07-2005, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
What is your source for these facts? Ah-ha! So you admit they're facts!

jimmac

12-07-2005, 09:46 PM

Well here's a source right off the cuff without even trying :

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0928-21.htm

I'm sure I could find more. What would one expect after invading and occupying a country but a resistance?

jimmac

12-07-2005, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by e1618978
And they were wrong to do so. I'm not anti-democrat, I am pro-war.

War, waged well (not like Bush has done), is a great force for human progress in the world. We need to work towards democracy in every non-democratic country, and I don't think that anything but war is up to that challange.

Uh, huh.......:no:

This kind of thinking went out with WWII.

It doesn't work anymore now that we are truly a global ( nuclear ) race. Face it we need each other. War is the last option. When you don't have any other choice.

Chris Cuilla

12-07-2005, 10:31 PM

Originally posted by Outsider
Ah-ha! So you admit they're facts!

No, not really. I was giving a benefit of the doubt to the poster that was asserting the statements as if they were facts.

Chris Cuilla

12-07-2005, 10:43 PM

Originally posted by jimmac
Well here's a source right off the cuff without even trying :

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0928-21.htm

I'm sure I could find more. What would one expect after invading and occupying a country but a resistance?

Interesting. So let's examine sammi_jo's statements against your source:

Originally posted by sammi_jo
Most of the "terrorists" as you describe them are regular Iraqi people

Your article states:

"loyalists of Saddam Hussein's regime — who have swelled their ranks in recent months as ordinary Iraqis bristle at the U.S. military presence in Iraq"

and

"former regime elements of the ex-Baath Party"

and

"the traffic from Syria is largely Iraqi Baathists who escaped after the U.S.-led invasion and couriers bringing in money from former members of Hussein's government"

Sounds like it is mostly the bad guys who aren't too happy to have their gravy train (of wealth and power) come to an end.

Originally posted by sammi_jo
There are some 100 or more separate Iraqi groups, many with little in common, which comprise the insurgency.

No indication of this from your source.

Gene Clean

12-07-2005, 11:21 PM

So your point is that... people loyal to Saddam are not normal people? Or that they're not regular people? Or that they're not Iraqi? Or that their murder is justifiable? Or that... they don't deserve to be called people? At all?

Chris Cuilla

12-07-2005, 11:24 PM

Originally posted by Gene Clean
So your point is that... people loyal to Saddam are not normal people? Or that they're not regular people? Or that they're not Iraqi? Or that their murder is justifiable? Or that... they don't deserve to be called people? At all?

The point is that the idea of "average citizens" vs. "previous oppressive, terrorist regime members" are different things. I don't think this is really a big stretch.

Gene Clean

12-07-2005, 11:26 PM

So, even the low-level clerks, the mailman, the secretary typing letters for the previous Foreign Ministry are military targets, no?

Hence they're not counted in the "people" column. Instead, they're dinasours. Right?

Chris Cuilla

12-07-2005, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by Gene Clean
So, even the low-level clerks, the mailman, the secretary typing letters for the previous Foreign Ministry are military targets, no?

Hence they're not counted in the "people" column. Instead, they're dinasours. Right?

If you disagree with my opinion...just say "Hey, I think you are wrong." I'm a big boy. I can handle it. But try to avoid making statements that imply the people perpetrating these terrorist acts are "low-level clerks, the mailman, the secretary typing letters for the previous Foreign Ministry" it is disingenuous (at best) and makes you look like a fool.

e1618978

12-08-2005, 07:38 AM

Originally posted by jimmac
Uh, huh.......:no:

This kind of thinking went out with WWII.

It doesn't work anymore now that we are truly a global ( nuclear ) race. Face it we need each other. War is the last option. When you don't have any other choice.

That actually hurts your argument. The risk of nuclear proliferation adds urgency in our quest to invade and democratisize the dangerous dictatorships - if we wait until they are nuclear powers, the human race is done for.

Hassan i Sabbah

12-08-2005, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
If you disagree with my opinion...just say "Hey, I think you are wrong." I'm a big boy. I can handle it. But try to avoid making statements that imply the people perpetrating these terrorist acts are "low-level clerks, the mailman, the secretary typing letters for the previous Foreign Ministry" it is disingenuous (at best) and makes you look like a fool.
Mmm. It's equally foolish to pretend that having your country invaded and managed in the way Iraq has been isn't going to radicalise... just about everyone.

midwinter

12-08-2005, 08:25 AM

Originally posted by midwinter
Whatever lets you sleep at night. 43 people died in Baghdad last night. 70 wounded (maimed)

30 killed in a bus attack (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/08/iraq.main/index.html). How you sleeping, Moe?

e1618978

12-08-2005, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Mmm. It's equally foolish to pretend that having your country invaded and managed in the way Iraq has been isn't going to radicalise... just about everyone.

Agreed - but I think that it is important to recongize that it is only the bungling of the administration that caused this. It does not mean that we throw out the whole concept of preemptive invasion, we just do a better job next time.

jimmac

12-08-2005, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by e1618978
That actually hurts your argument. The risk of nuclear proliferation adds urgency in our quest to invade and democratisize the dangerous dictatorships - if we wait until they are nuclear powers, the human race is done for.

War increases the risk. Eventually it would lead to this kind of exchange. Some of these people already have the capability or access to through allies.

It's just one of the many reasons this war thing doesn't work anymore.

Weak argument.

Chris Cuilla

12-08-2005, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Mmm. It's equally foolish to pretend that having your country invaded and managed in the way Iraq has been isn't going to radicalise... just about everyone.

I am not pretending any such thing. However, since you raised it...I don't notice anyone claiming that "just about everyone" in Iraq has become "radicalised".

Chris Cuilla

12-08-2005, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by midwinter
30 killed in a bus attack (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/08/iraq.main/index.html). How you sleeping, Moe?

And who's fault is this? Oh wait...it's not the fault of the suicide bombers...so we'll have to look elsewhere.

midwinter

12-08-2005, 09:32 AM

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
And who's fault is this? Oh wait...it's not the fault of the suicide bombers...so we'll have to look elsewhere.

You think a "flypaper strategy" helps with this kind of thing? How about the "we're gonna fight a war in your yard so we don't screw up our yard" strategy? That's right! America never does anything wrong! Ever! In fact, no American action has ever been a mistake!

Chris Cuilla

12-08-2005, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by midwinter
That's right! America never does anything wrong! Ever! In fact, no American action has ever been a mistake!

You said it, not me.

The bottom line is that the only people responsible for the bombing are the bombers themselves and the people that supplied them. It really is that simple. Blaming anyone else is just plain dumb.

The U.S. government is responsible for its wrong actions too. But until we have evidence that says members of the U.S. government, planned, supplied and/or executed this bombing (and otehr many others like it)...then the responsibility lies elsewhere.

e1618978

12-08-2005, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by jimmac
War increases the risk. Eventually it would lead to this kind of exchange. Some of these people already have the capability or access to through allies.

It's just one of the many reasons this war thing doesn't work anymore.

Weak argument.

Besides China, name one dictatorship that has Nukes.

Hassan i Sabbah

12-08-2005, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I am not pretending any such thing. However, since you raised it...I don't notice anyone claiming that "just about everyone" in Iraq has become "radicalised".
Oh dude, don't wilfully misunderstand what people post. I credit you with enough intelligence to understand what I'm saying when I'm arguing with you because I have the courtesy to try and catch you out honestly. Just do the same.

midwinter

12-08-2005, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
You said it, not me.

The bottom line is that the only people responsible for the bombing are the bombers themselves and the people that supplied them. It really is that simple. Blaming anyone else is just plain dumb.

The U.S. government is responsible for its wrong actions too. But until we have evidence that says members of the U.S. government, planned, supplied and/or executed this bombing (and otehr many others like it)...then the responsibility lies elsewhere.

You can't be serious. The President himself has said that the strategy is to draw terrorists into the region. You can't really feign surprise when things start blowing up.

Chris Cuilla

12-08-2005, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Oh dude, don't wilfully misunderstand what people post.

I'm not doing that. But the bottom line is that some folks (perhaps even you) are overstating the "insurgency" (or are the "freedom fighters" and "rebels"). These are a small faction of the original bad guys that are a little ticked off that they are out of power and think they can create a scenario that will shame the U.S. into leaving a power vacuum so they can get back into power/control and terrorize 2/3 of their people and steal from them.

I am not claiming the U.S. is entirely blameless or flawless in what has happened. But let's stop pretending that a) the U.S. is to blame for everything, and b) the terrorists that are killing civilians (like the example midwinter posted) are anything but terrorists of the former oppressive regime.

Both are lies.

midwinter

12-08-2005, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I'm not doing that. But the bottom line is that some folks (perhaps even you) are overstating the "insurgency" (or are the "freedom fighters" and "rebels"). These are a small faction of the original bad guys that are a little ticked off that they are out of power and think they can create a scenario that will shame the U.S. into leaving a power vacuum so they can get back into power/control and terrorize 2/3 of their people and steal from them.

I am not claiming the U.S. is entirely blameless or flawless in what has happened. But let's stop pretending that a) the U.S. is to blame for everything, and b) the terrorists that are killing civilians (like the example midwinter posted) are anything but terrorists of the former oppressive regime.

Both are lies.

You're claiming that the people blowing things are are Ba'athists?!

And no one said the US is to blame for everything. But Iraq? Dude, we broke it, now we own it.

midwinter

12-08-2005, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by e1618978
Besides China, name one dictatorship that has Nukes.

Pakistan.

e1618978

12-08-2005, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by midwinter
Pakistan.

Now - notice how we are not invading them? Notice how we are not invading North Korea? Once we live in a world where every crappy dictator has nuclear weapons, we are shot.

We really should do some serious nation building in Africa, before it is too late. I think that we should create Carthage - an African superpower containing as much of the continent as we can conquer. Build schools, create a military where nobody from the same tribe or village is likely to serve in their previous country or with their previous countrymen, and start building the economy.

Chris Cuilla

12-08-2005, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by midwinter
You're claiming that the people blowing things are are Ba'athists?!

Then tell us all who it is. I'm just going on the article that was provided as a source that said pretty much all of the insurgents are domestic. Not even my link.

Originally posted by midwinter
And no one said the US is to blame for everything.

Well...

Originally posted by midwinter
But Iraq? Dude, we broke it, now we own it.

I agree we need to fix Iraq.

midwinter

12-08-2005, 10:52 AM

midwinter

12-08-2005, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Then tell us all who it is. I'm just going on the article that was provided as a source that said pretty much all of the insurgents are domestic. Not even my link.

Domestic does not equal Ba'athist or Saddam loyalist. Here's a BBC article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4268904.stm) from October on the insurgency. There are distinct groups, all with their own agendas.

Well...

"Well" nothing. No one claimed it. You implied it for some bizarre reason and I made fun of you for it.

I agree we need to fix Iraq.

Now here's the question: what if our staying is actually making it worse? If we pull out, what happens? Iraq trurns bloody? It already is.

Chris Cuilla

12-08-2005, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by midwinter
While I agree that Africa has been screwed royally and left to hang in the breeze after the end of the cold war, conquering it would hardly be the answer and would undoubtedly cause far more problems than it would solve.

What should the wealthy, industrialized nations (perhaps just the U.S.) do for Africa? Should we allow it to just "hang in the breeze"? If not, what then? It seems "nation building" (e#s term) doesn't have to be "conquering" (your term). What are we to do?

Chris Cuilla

12-08-2005, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by midwinter
what if our staying is actually making it worse?

Then we should leave.

Originally posted by midwinter
If we pull out, what happens?

I think things get worse.

midwinter

12-08-2005, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
It seems "nation building" (e#s term) doesn't have to be "conquering" (your term). What are we to do?

You're right. Nation building doesn't have to equal conquering. What to do? No idea. Maybe send e#s in with a rifle and a flag (a la Eddie Izzard)?

midwinter

12-08-2005, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I think things get worse.

What does that mean in terms of Iraq? What does "worse" look like?

Chris Cuilla

12-08-2005, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by midwinter
What does that mean in terms of Iraq? What does "worse" look like?

Perhaps all-out civil war. Perhaps even more.

e1618978

12-08-2005, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by midwinter
What's your point?

Who the hell are you, Octavian? While I agree that Africa has been screwed royally and left to hang in the breeze after the end of the cold war, conquering it would hardly be the answer and would undoubtedly cause far more problems than it would solve.

http://www.roman-empire.net/emperors/augustus.html

"Augustus was undoubtedly one of the most talented, energetic and skillful administrators that the world has ever known. The enormously far-reaching work of reorganization and rehabilitation which he undertook in every branch of his vast empire created a new Roman peace with unprecedented prosperity."

My point is that the world needs bigger countries, fewer ultimate leaders. Those big countries need to be democracies.

Having a bunch of dictators who are accountable to nobody but themselves will end up killing us all once nuclear weapons reach enough countries.

midwinter

12-08-2005, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Perhaps all-out civil war. Perhaps even more.

All-out civil war? What do you call what's going on now?

Chris Cuilla

12-08-2005, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by midwinter
All-out civil war? What do you call what's going on now?

Localized squabbles and terrorist attacks by small factions that gets lots of air play?

I don't think you can call the current situation "all-out civil war", but that is just my opinion.

midwinter

12-08-2005, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by e1618978
http://www.roman-empire.net/emperors/augustus.html

"Augustus was undoubtedly one of the most talented, energetic and skillful administrators that the world has ever known. The enormously far-reaching work of reorganization and rehabilitation which he undertook in every branch of his vast empire created a new Roman peace with unprecedented prosperity."

I chose Octavian because my understanding is that he really solidified the Roman move from Republic into full-on Empire. And while an individual may be able to hold such a beast together by sheer force of will or political cunning, there comes a point where that expansion collapses back upon itself.

My point is that the world needs bigger countries, fewer ultimate leaders. Those big countries need to be democracies.

So what you're saying is that the current democracies should briefly become dictatorships and take over the world and then become democracies? I'm not sure your logic makes sense here.

Having a bunch of dictators who are accountable to nobody but themselves will end up killing us all once nuclear weapons reach enough countries.

Take a second and look back at that effusive praise for Octavian. Then read your problem with dictators again.

Irony stick at the ready.

midwinter

12-08-2005, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Localized squabbles and terrorist attacks by small factions

When you have no formal military, what do you think a civil war looks like?

e1618978

12-08-2005, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by midwinter
So what you're saying is that the current democracies should briefly become dictatorships and take over the world and then become democracies?

There is a transition period of occupation, yes, but then the countries part ways as seperate superpowers.

midwinter

12-08-2005, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by e1618978
There is a transition period of occupation, yes, but then the countries part ways as seperate superpowers.

Now you're channeling Hegel. Could you give an example of this?

e1618978

12-08-2005, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by midwinter
Now you're channeling Hegel. Could you give an example of this?

The human race has never had the ability to project so much power overseas, but the british creation of the USA would have been a good example if they had given us liberty voluntarily.

Another example is the british creation of India, which was much less of a single country before.

BTW - I think that it was Caesar who declared himself a god, Augustus gave some power back to the Senate, while still keeping a lot for himself.

midwinter

12-08-2005, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by e1618978
The human race has never had the ability to project so much power overseas, but the british creation of the USA would have been a good example if they had given us liberty voluntarily.

But they didn't grant it willingly. It took a world war for them to grant it.

Another example is the british creation of India, which was much less of a single country before.

And the people rose up against them—a veritable insurgency! And when they left this cobbled together thing they'd created? It promptly tore itself in half.

I'm still waiting on an example of this. Perhaps somewhere in Africa? Maybe Rwanda? Somalia?

BTW - I think that it was Caesar who declared himself a god, Augustus gave some power back to the Senate, while still keeping a lot for himself.

Here's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus) the wikipedia article on Octavian. He was an interesting guy, but I don't really believe he'd have granted power back to the Senate if he hadn't had to.

e1618978

12-08-2005, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by midwinter
I'm still waiting on an example of this.

The British and Roman empires were as close as we have ever come - but just because something has never been done does not mean that it is not worth doing.

Do you truely think that Liberia will ever be anything but a crap hole if it stays small, and never moves to democracy? Liberia and all the small dictatorships like it are a security threat, and need to be made into something safer and greater - an African democratic superpower.

midwinter

12-08-2005, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by e1618978
The British and Roman empires were as close as we have ever come - but just because something has never been done does not mean that it is not worth doing.

Don't forget Hitler's Germany and Napoleon's France.

Good track record, this idea of yours. Why do you stick with it, again?

Do you truely think that Liberia will ever be anything but a crap hole if it stays small, and never moves to democracy? Liberia and all the small dictatorships like it are a security threat, and need to be made into something safer and greater - an African democratic superpower.

Are you really using Liberia as an example?

Gene Clean

12-08-2005, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
[B]If you disagree with my opinion...

If? That's quite clear, seeing as you don't have an opinion. You have... newspaper opinions.

just say "Hey, I think you are wrong." I'm a big boy. I can handle it.

Yeah, sure...

But try to avoid making statements that imply the people perpetrating these terrorist acts are "low-level clerks, the mailman, the secretary typing letters for the previous Foreign Ministry" it is disingenuous (at best) and makes you look like a fool.

They were parts of the regime too. You would get a job in that regime only if you were member of the Baath Party. So, how is it that it's okay to kill Baathists, even if they were just simple folk? Secretaries? Mailmen?

I mean, that's your claim right? If you were Baathist (which the absolute majority of the entire civialian apparatus was, due to requirements) you are not 'regular Iraqi people'. Please show me how this is foolish.

Chris Cuilla

12-08-2005, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by Gene Clean
I mean, that's your claim right?

No.

e1618978

12-08-2005, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by midwinter
Don't forget Hitler's Germany and Napoleon's France.

Good track record, this idea of yours. Why do you stick with it, again?

Are you really using Liberia as an example?

The British Empire is a whole lot better example than France or Germany. France and Germany were tearing down empires and major nations, while Britan was building up nations from small sutlanates and such - also, nice cheap shot comparing me to Nazi germany.

I'm using Liberia as an example, because there are tons of small crappy countries like that - and they are all dangers to us due to the potential for future nuclear prolifieration. If we could wall them off and never have to deal with them for the rest of time, then we could ignore them, but we can't.

The British empire effort was marred by imperialism (not letting the created countries transition to home rule peacefully), and by racism (not putting natives in positions of power). I am proposing a American effort that does the same thing without making the same mistakes.

Gene Clean

12-08-2005, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
No.

Read my sig.

midwinter

12-08-2005, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by e1618978
[B]The British Empire is a whole lot better example than France or Germany. France and Germany were tearing down empires and major nations, while Britan was building up nations from small sutlanates and such

I'm not sure what the difference is between tearing down empires and major nations and conquering places. Perhaps you can explain?

also, nice cheap shot comparing me to Nazi germany.

I wasn't comparing you to anything. I didn't even mention the Nazis.

I'm using Liberia as an example, because there are tons of small crappy countries like that - and they are all dangers to us due to the potential for future nuclear prolifieration. If we could wall them off and never have to deal with them for the rest of time, then we could ignore them, but we can't.

I'm suggesting that Liberia, which was colonized, isn't the best example, since it is in many ways an example of what goes wrong when you run around colonizing and conquering.

The British empire effort was marred by imperialism (not letting the created countries transition to home rule peacefully), and by racism (not putting natives in positions of power).

What Empire willingly gives up a cash cow? What conquerer willingly gives up a cash cow? What nation-builder severs all ties and allows them to form naturally?

I am proposing a American effort that does the same thing without making the same mistakes.

I think that to believe in such a project of "a kinder, gentler conquering" is naive.

e1618978

12-08-2005, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by midwinter
I'm not sure what the difference is between tearing down empires and major nations and conquering places. Perhaps you can explain?

I'm suggesting that Liberia, which was colonized, isn't the best example, since it is in many ways an example of what goes wrong when you run around colonizing and conquering.

What Empire willingly gives up a cash cow? What conquerer willingly gives up a cash cow? What nation-builder severs all ties and allows them to form naturally?

I think that to believe in such a project of "a kinder, gentler conquering" is naive.

If the goal is to produce large democracies, attacking a large democracy and taking it over is not what you want to do - you want to collect a bunch of little dictatorships and turn them into a large democracy.

Liberia was screwed up by the British because of the two flaws that I mentioned earlier in the British imperial system. We would have natives in charge, and education of natives the highest priority.

Empires are not cash cows - the British empire cost more to run than it produced in extra British revenue.

I think that "kinder, gentler conquering" is a lot less risky than letting the countries stay as they are. To me it seems naive to say that we should leave them alone, that they will never bother us, peace be with us...

midwinter

12-08-2005, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by e1618978
If the goal is to produce large democracies, attacking a large democracy and taking it over is not what you want to do - you want to collect a bunch of little dictatorships and turn them into a large democracy.

I would imagine that McDonald's is a far more effective way to accomplish this than a cruise missile.

Liberia was screwed up by the British

Huh? Was Liberia ever colonized by the Brits?

Empires are not cash cows - the British empire cost more to run than it produced in extra British revenue.

You misunderstand. The thing you CONQUER is the cash cow. Who would ever, EVER give that up?

I think that "kinder, gentler conquering" is a lot less risky than letting the countries stay as they are. To me it seems naive to say that we should leave them alone, that they will never bother us, peace be with us...

To me it seems that the most effective way to conquer folks is to suck'em into our economic system, and so if they want to get what we have, they have to play nice.

Chris Cuilla

12-08-2005, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by midwinter
To me it seems that the most effective way to conquer folks is to suck'em into our economic system, and so if they want to get what we have, they have to play nice.

Well conquer or elevate from poverty, I think this is right. But in order for this to happen, a lot of the countries we are talking about (like Africa) would need governmental and economic reforms that are going to be amenable to outsiders investing $ there. Eliminate/reduce corruption in the governments. Reduce tax rates. Establish/respect property rights (including intellectual property). These are the prevailing barriers to entry. Basic education and health are also issues of course. But if the environment can be improved to be more economically friendly, these others will be taken care of too.

e1618978

12-08-2005, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Well conquer or elevate from poverty, I think this is right. But in order for this to happen, a lot of the countries we are talking about (like Africa) would need governmental and economic reforms that are going to be amenable to outsiders investing $ there. Eliminate/reduce corruption in the governments. Reduce tax rates. Establish/respect property rights (including intellectual property). These are the prevailing barriers to entry. Basic education and health are also issues of course. But if the environment can be improved to be more economically friendly, these others will be taken care of too.

Exactly. We tried to do this in a gentle way in Somolia, and ended up with the "Black Hawk Down".

Any aid you give to Africans goes directly to the dictator and his henchmen. Killing the dictators is priority #1 if you want to change the situation for the better. You can't open McDonalds in Somolia, they would kill the workers and sell the equipment in about 5 minutes.

Also, the countries that Britan conquered provided less loot than they cost to conquer - Britian lost money building the empire.

midwinter

12-08-2005, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by e1618978
Exactly. We tried to do this in a gentle way in Somolia, and ended up with the "Black Hawk Down".

Any aid you give to Africans goes directly to the dictator and his henchmen. Killing the dictators is priority #1 if you want to change the situation for the better. You can't open McDonalds in Somolia, they would kill the workers and sell the equipment in about 5 minutes.

Also, the countries that Britan conquered provided less loot than they cost to conquer - Britian lost money building the empire.

Um (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu). We tried to do it your way, actually. Unless you consider something like 1200 dead "gentle."

e1618978

12-08-2005, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by midwinter
Um (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu). We tried to do it your way, actually. Unless you consider something like 1200 dead "gentle."

160 marines, that sounds like something Carter or Clinton would do. Read "Emergency Sex: life in hell on earth" for an account of how screwed up that operation was, and how Clinton turned chicken shit and pulled out on the brink of winning.

addabox

12-08-2005, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by e1618978
160 marines, that sounds like something Carter or Clinton would do. Read "Emergency Sex: life in hell on earth" for an account of how screwed up that operation was, and how Clinton turned chicken shit and pulled out on the brink of winning.

It seems that you don't have any examples at all of a successful rendition of your "altruistic empire" scheme (unless you have fond feelings for the Roman Empire, I couldn't quite tell).

Instead, we have a long list of failed to outright disastrous efforts to build Pax-whoever-has-the-biggest-guns.

Your response to these is to claim that the underlying principle is or was sound and the fault lies in the execution.

So you're arguing for a scenario that has no successful instances with an apparently deeply held belief that if only somebody (well, us) would do it right it would turn out splendidly.

So where in the world does that belief come from?

Is it just some kind of "American intrinsic goodness plus bad ass leadership willing to do whatever is necessary manifestly (ahem) equals the golden age" faith based thing?

midwinter

12-08-2005, 06:42 PM

e1618978

12-08-2005, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by midwinter
They killed an estimated 1200 Somalis. That's gentle?

Yes. Not only that, but they had basically won - the dictator was totally out of ammunition, and then Clinton called them home.

e1618978

12-08-2005, 07:00 PM

Originally posted by addabox
So where in the world does that belief come from?

The British empire shaped the word that we have today - Canada, the US, India, Australia, etc were all formed by its expansionary military campaigns, and the world is better off that those large democratic countries exist.

Looking back at the British empire - seeing their flaws, I can easily imagine us doing better then they did, since we are less racist, and have no permainant territorial ambitions outside of North America.

midwinter

12-08-2005, 07:19 PM

Originally posted by e1618978
the world is better off that those large democratic countries exist.

How can you know this with any certainty?

we are less racist, and have no permainant territorial ambitions outside of North America. [/B]

Um. Suuuure.

e1618978

12-08-2005, 07:22 PM

Originally posted by midwinter
How can you know this with any certainty?

Faith? If its good enough for everybody else in NC, it is good enough for me...

Anyway, I think more people will die if we don't do it.

midwinter

12-08-2005, 07:25 PM

Originally posted by e1618978
Faith? If its good enough for everybody else in NC, it is good enough for me...

Anyway, I think more people will die if we don't do it.

Faith-based foreign policy, then. Not much different from what we have with Bush.

e1618978

12-08-2005, 07:31 PM

Originally posted by midwinter
Faith-based foreign policy, then. Not much different from what we have with Bush.

It is no different from your position - you have faith that the free market will get those countries out of poverty. I think that they will stay poor and kill us, and have faith that invading them is the solution. We are both holding positions of faith, and the future of the human race is in the balance - if the side that is currently guessing wrong gets into power, then we could all die.

addabox

12-08-2005, 07:51 PM

Originally posted by e1618978
The British empire shaped the word that we have today - Canada, the US, India, Australia, etc were all formed by its expansionary military campaigns, and the world is better off that those large democratic countries exist.

Looking back at the British empire - seeing their flaws, I can easily imagine us doing better then they did, since we are less racist, and have no permainant territorial ambitions outside of North America.

Um, the creation of the United States and Canada was predicated on running roughshod over the indigenous populations, to the point that those land masses were basically treated as a clean slate. There was no "rescuing" the indigenous North Americans from the clutches of some dictator; we killed most of them.

Australia was settled as a penal colony, not that it worked out much better for that continents indigenous population.

Not too many continents remain undiscovered by great naval powers where they can establish colonies, and frankly it makes no sense whatsoever to site these as a successful example of what you are talking about.

India, as Midwinter has pointed out, was shotgunned into something by the British and promptly tore itself apart once they left. Again, not sure how India serves as an example of liberating "crappy" countries from despots via conquest.

Unless you were thinking that America should invade Africa, kill everybody there or force them into concentration camps on the unaerable land and use the newly liberated territory to create a democratic super state populated by American colonists?

midwinter

12-08-2005, 07:56 PM

e#s, there's just nothing left to say but this (http://images.littlemeanfish.com/itsabitcold.mp4) (.mp4 720 KB)

jimmac

12-08-2005, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by e1618978
Now - notice how we are not invading them? Notice how we are not invading North Korea? Once we live in a world where every crappy dictator has nuclear weapons, we are shot.

We really should do some serious nation building in Africa, before it is too late. I think that we should create Carthage - an African superpower containing as much of the continent as we can conquer. Build schools, create a military where nobody from the same tribe or village is likely to serve in their previous country or with their previous countrymen, and start building the economy.

Ok he beat me to it.

So you mean we should try to change the world to our definition of whats right for safety's sake?

Well I hate to remind you this sort of thing's been tried before.

Rome

Nazi Germany

The Soviet Union

etc.

None of these guys ended with a nice scenerio nor did they accomplish their task.

Why you say?

Well the rest of the world just didn't want to go along.

Imagine that.

Also it just wasn't the right thing to do.

So it just doesn't work.

Also we would play a major part in creating one of the bloodiest chapters in the history of the world.

And we would probably not come out of this without permanently diminishing our place in the world.

You know, the thing you were trying to avoid.

I'm afraid I'll have to say no thank you!

jimmac

12-08-2005, 08:16 PM

Originally posted by midwinter
e#s, there's just nothing left to say but this (http://images.littlemeanfish.com/itsabitcold.mp4) (.mp4 720 KB)

Pretty funny!

I don't think he'll listen though.;)

addabox

12-08-2005, 08:29 PM

Eddy's the man.

e1618978

12-08-2005, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by jimmac
Pretty funny!

I don't think he'll listen though.;)

I did listen - maybe it was supposed to be longer? It ended with "same bad idea".

But there is very little snow in Africa. We could start small, maybe with Chad, and then work our way to the edges - we could encourage the neighboring countries to overthrow their dictators, and then add them to the empire and build them schools and an economy, etc.

I don't think we should invade the whole thing at once.

hardeeharhar

12-08-2005, 09:16 PM

Wait. Why are we invading Africa?

shetline

12-08-2005, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Wait. Why are we invading Africa?
I here western Africa might has potential to become a major oil producing region. Isn't that reason enough? :\

e1618978

12-08-2005, 10:20 PM

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Wait. Why are we invading Africa?

To save the world from small dictatorships, come nuclear proliferation time. The Republic of Carthage should occupy the whole of Africa, including Madagascar, with a series of space elevators along the equator line (there you go, a third reason to invade - we need that equitorial land to be in safe and stable hands).

hardeeharhar

12-08-2005, 10:25 PM

Alright Eric...

What ever you say...

The truth of the matter is that the longest lived democracies in the world are the ones that were installed by the people rather than by external force.

What you can hope for is a blossoming of the relationship of Democratic world powers with NGO operating in Africa. The citizens of the countries there need to see a reason to become democracies, and the best opportunity for that to occur is through education...

Gon

12-09-2005, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by e1618978
My point is that the world needs bigger countries, fewer ultimate leaders. Those big countries need to be democracies.I believe there's a contradiction there. The bigger the country, the less democracy you will have. Think about it.Having a bunch of dictators who are accountable to nobody but themselves will end up killing us all once nuclear weapons reach enough countries. And having a bunch of dictators flying the flag of "democracy" will also bring misery to an untold number of people.

jimmac

12-09-2005, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by e1618978
I did listen - maybe it was supposed to be longer? It ended with "same bad idea".

But there is very little snow in Africa. We could start small, maybe with Chad, and then work our way to the edges - we could encourage the neighboring countries to overthrow their dictators, and then add them to the empire and build them schools and an economy, etc.

I don't think we should invade the whole thing at once.

I can see you didn't listen. Like the man said : " It's the same idea! " The weather or geography doesn't matter.

It just will be wrong and just won't work. Even if you start small they'll know what you're doing.

Also it undermines the very foundation this country was built upon and what you're asking these countries to embrace. Conquest isn't very democratic.

Anyone with just a bit of sense would see that.

e1618978

12-09-2005, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by Gon
I believe there's a contradiction there. The bigger the country, the less democracy you will have. Think about it.And having a bunch of dictators flying the flag of "democracy" will also bring misery to an untold number of people.

So you think that the US has less democracy than, say, the Congo? It is a bigger country after all...

You guys are all ignoring the risk of these small countries - if you leave them alone they will kill us eventually. No matter how risky my plan is, it is way safer than not doing anyting.

midwinter

12-09-2005, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by e1618978
So you think that the US has less democracy than, say, the Congo? It is a bigger country after all...

Since the issue is the size of democracies, I think you meant to ask "So you think that the US has less democracy than, say, ancient Athens?"

You guys are all ignoring the risk of these small countries - if you leave them alone they will kill us eventually. No matter how risky my plan is, it is way safer than not doing anyting.

Again: you simply cannot know that for sure, and all of human history not only suggests otherwise, but also makes clear that your "plan" doesn't work.

Flounder

12-09-2005, 06:21 PM

To quote Madeline Albright:

Imposing democracy is an oxymoron.

Triestino

12-10-2005, 04:45 AM

Originally posted by e1618978
You guys are all ignoring the risk of these small countries - if you leave them alone they will kill us eventually. Jeez, at least you're not paranoid. :no:

To be sure, lots of people want to harm us - unfortunately more now than before. You have to do the math - pre-emption only works if it takes out more risk than it pisses people off and induces them to kill / bomb / maim us further. Afghanistan seems to pass the test, Iraq appears not to.

On this whole democracy debate, worthy as it is, it would seem to me that the issue facing the good citizens of the US and UK, is how such an unpopular (nationally and internationa) and uapparently unjustified war was possible. Can our leaders simply wage war as and when they want, without recourse to public opinion, the facts, the international communityetc etc - these are changed times.

In terms of our freedoms, it seems the issues are even starker. Good as the respective constitutions are, it does appear that governments have much more ability to silence dissenting voices - "habeas corpous" (the right not of be imprisoned without fair trial) seems to be being eroded.

Whatever George Bush has done well, and however laudable he may be in other ways, it does appear very unwise to be trumpeting freedom on every occasion as he does - to my mind, the freedom of the individual looks alot more at risk than it did four years ago.

addabox

12-10-2005, 02:00 PM

No one likes us-I don't know why
We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try
But all around, even our old friends put us down
Let's drop the big one and see what happens

We give them money-but are they grateful?
No, they're spiteful and they're hateful
They don't respect us-so let's surprise them
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them

Asia's crowded and Europe's too old
Africa is far too hot
And Canada's too cold
And South America stole our name
Let's drop the big one
There'll be no one left to blame us

We'll save Australia
Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo
We'll build an All American amusement park there
They got surfin', too

Boom goes London and boom Paree
More room for you and more room for me
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town
Oh, how peaceful it will be
We'll set everybody free
You'll wear a Japanese kimono
And there'll be Italian shoes for me

They all hate us anyhow
So let's drop the big one now
Let's drop the big one now

"Political Science" Randy Newman © 1972