|Posted on Tuesday, October 1, 2002 - 11:10 am: |
But stability for whose benefit? Is the aim of US foreign policy really to create a more stable world? Or is the aim to control as much of the planet as it can in order to benefit US financial interests?
Has the USA's imperialist approach increased hatred towards the USA or decreased hatred to the USA? Why did Al Qaeda attack the twin towers? Why should Islamic groups automatically hate the USA? The Arab world used to be our allies. Islam is not inherently anti-Western.
Is Israel a stabilising influence in the middle-east? Has the USA's unquestioning support for Israel resulted in a more stable middle-east? Has it resulted in a more peaceful world?
I'm not anti-USA but I am opposed to the imperialist foreign policy of the US governments over the past 50 years. If I was American I'd still be opposed to US imperialism. Would this make me anti-USA? I suppose that Joe McCarthy and the HUAC would say so. Would being very left-wing make an American anti-USA? Only if you insist that the conditions of being American include being of a right-wing persuasion.
Being anti-US imperialist foreign policy is not the same as being anti-US. I have no issue with the USA or its people but I do have an issue with strong powers imposing their control on weaker powers.
|Posted on Tuesday, October 1, 2002 - 11:00 am: |
You have changed my mind, I now also believe that at least part of our interest in toppling Saddam is oil... but I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
So, by extension, when the Japanese attacked us in 1941 to protect THEIR oil supplies, that was OK too?
|Posted on Tuesday, October 1, 2002 - 12:45 am: |
the monkies are back, the monkies are back!
|Posted on Tuesday, October 1, 2002 - 12:31 am: |
Hobby, you seem like a sensible person, and while I admit you seem to be better researched than I on this topic, your anti-US stance is annoying. The whole purpose of debate is to discuss, maybe with the intention of changing ones mind.
You have changed my mind, I now also believe that at least part of our interest in toppling Saddam is oil... but I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
However, I think you are underestimating the desire for stability that the US has. I think you are overestimating the "deviousness" of all parties involved.
And you seem to be intractable in these beliefs. This particular topic seems to be fruitless.
I'm off to post about how I REALLY feel. And since it's based on personal opinion, it should be fun...
|Posted on Saturday, September 28, 2002 - 1:58 am: |
For those interested in Tony Blair's 'proof' against Iraq the dossier of evidence can be found on.
Nothing very surprising in it. Basically it seems to say that Sadam is a nasty man who has done nasty things in the past, has ignored UN resolutions and could well do nasty things in the future.
I wonder if Blair will be providing us with a dossier of evidence against Sharon next?
|Posted on Saturday, September 28, 2002 - 1:18 am: |
So you readily admit that Iraq does not sponsor anti-Western terrorist groups.
You also say that.
"The War Against Terror, has a two fold purpose. One of those purposes, like it or not, is to defend the US from future attacks like those of a year ago."
So what has this got to do with a war on Iraq? Iraq does not sponsor anti-Western terrorism (unlike our good friends the Saudis). Iraq is not a supporter of anti-Western terrorism.
Iraq has never even used conventional military weapons first against the West. Iraq only became anti-Western when we got involved with a war that Iraq started (not against us) but against Kuwait. (So we sent our troops there to 'defend democracy'. WHAT FUCKING DEMOCRACY?)
You really are on another planet. Where on Earth did you get the idea that I thought Iraq was a "good place"?
Saddam Hussain is a scumbag (although many of our allies are worse scumbags), but then he always was. He was a scumbag when he started a really nasty war (with our support) against Iran (using chemical weapons and indiscriminately killing Iranian civilians). He was a scumbag when he used chemical weapons to kill the Kurds (with our support and with the crop-spraying planes that the USA had sold to him just prior to the Halabja massacre (maybe they thought he had a lot of crops growing in the desserts of Iraq that he wanted to spray)).
The fact that he is a scumbag and brutally represses his people HAS ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING WHATSOEVER ON THE WEST'S WISH TO REMOVE HIM. He became our enemy when it became clear he wanted to increase his share of control of oil in the region. It was nothing to do with him being a scumbag. The West couldn't give a shit about whether regimes repress their people or not, this nonsense about promoting democracy is pure garbage.
Look at Saudi Arabia, there is far, far less democracy in Saudi Arabia than in either Iraq or Iran. Why are the Saudis not part of the 'axis of evil'? Iran is now branded as part of this 'axis of evil'. The Iranian government allows opposition to stand against them in free elections (you don't see the West pressurising the Saudis to do this) the Iranian Islamic government rules by popular mandate. The US only cares about whether a change in leadership in Iraq is better for the US, the interest of the people in Iraq is not an issue that concerns the US.
"In time, hopefully, the region will stabilize enough so that they can really work towards a democratic state, with equality and peace."
The US couldn't care less about democracy in the region, all the US wants is puppet-governments in the region regardless of whether they repress and kill their citizens.
The 'War on Terror' is not about defeating terrorism. It is a smokescreen so that the US can get rid of the regimes it does not like and try to give some legitimacy to its actions by claiming it was done as self-defense and for the good of mankind. Anyone who can't see through this is just plain stupid.
|Posted on Thursday, September 26, 2002 - 11:05 am: |
They invaded territories during a defensive war that was thrust upon them by foreign nations.
Just to be clear, the Israelis struck first in 2 of the Arab-Israeli wars, and invaded Lebanon during peace time.
|Posted on Thursday, September 26, 2002 - 6:37 am: |
"What's wrong with that? Seems to be the SOP for war."
Tristan, whose SOP? It is the SOP of dictators and, generally speaking, bad guys.
Democracies don't behave that way.
Otherwise, Germany, Italy and Japan would still be occupied by the Allies after their defeat in WWII.
|Posted on Wednesday, September 25, 2002 - 10:20 pm: |
They invaded territories during a defensive war that was thrust upon them by foreign nations. They won, so they have kept the land they took (chunks of it, anyways).
What's wrong with that? Seems to be the SOP for war.
|Posted on Wednesday, September 25, 2002 - 5:59 pm: |
Has ignored U.N. resolutions? Check.
Oppresses and kills minorities? Check.
Has weapons of mass destruction? Check.
Invades and occupies territories? Check.
Iraq? No, Israel.
Please, don't call me antisemitic. My ex-wife of 20 years is Jewish and we are still best friends.
I fully respect Jewish culture and religion. I guess they are doing what they think is best.
It's just that U.S. foreign policy could use some consistency.
|Posted on Wednesday, September 25, 2002 - 6:29 am: |
We left Saddam in power in 1991 because we realized it was "better" for the region (or our interests in the region) not to have Iraq collapse into chaos. That fact hasn't changed. A stable dictator who doesn't like us is still less ikely to interfere with our oil supply than a bunch of factions vying gor control. The only alternative to Saddam that would be to our advantage is to install a leader even MORE ruthless and oppressive, who could keep order but who sucks up to us for our money. I say leave well enough alone.
|Posted on Tuesday, September 24, 2002 - 11:41 pm: |
I've never said that Iraq is sponsering terrorism. The fact is, Iraq is probably not allied with any of the more active terrorist organizations, because they are not a "Muslim State".
You're right though. The war is about money... all wars are.
And I don't think that "better" leadership for Iraq means "Supportive of Democratic ideals", but better for the region and the people.....
The problem is, if you were to put a true blue democratic leader in place, he would get killed pretty quick.
In time, hopefully, the region will stabilize enough so that they can really work towards a democratic state, with equality and peace.
Right now, that's not realistic.
Hob- Do you consider Iraq to be a "good" place? And if so, why?
|Posted on Tuesday, September 24, 2002 - 3:40 pm: |
Apparently the US troops are being sent in to protect a school full of American kids of Baptist missionaries.
OK, I can see going off to a religiously divided, largely Muslim country in Africa to try to "convert the heathens", but do you have to bring your kids? Yeesh...
|Posted on Tuesday, September 24, 2002 - 3:25 pm: |
The following is interesting because it doesn't come from some leftist rag, but from Britain's "The Economist":
"Americans think we should be more like them, goes a bitter joke currently consoling Arabs, but every day they look more like us.
They have a hereditary presidency, corruption, terrorism, Israeli-occupied territory (Capitol Hill), and a bad record for human rights. Now they want to do to Iraq what Iraq did to Kuwait."
|Posted on Tuesday, September 24, 2002 - 2:47 pm: |
french, too...to protect about 20,000 french nationals that live and work and impose their religious beliefs there...
|Posted on Tuesday, September 24, 2002 - 11:22 am: |
Anybody else notice that the US just sent troops into Cote d'Ivoire?
|Posted on Tuesday, September 24, 2002 - 11:20 am: |
Nah, if it was JUST about financial interests, it would make more sense than this. It also has to do with our bizarre love-afair with Israel, a desire to maintain our position at the top of the food chain, providing the American people with some sense that we are "doing something" about terrorism, and plain old stubbornness. George has himself worked into such a froth over this that if he backed down, he'd look like a sissy.
|Posted on Tuesday, September 24, 2002 - 11:01 am: |
I am not 'anti-Western', I am part of the West, I am a Westerner. I am an ultra Left-wing Westerner and proud of it.
You seem to keep going on about that there is no proof that the USA has deliberately sponsored terrorism (although the World Court thought there was enough proof to convict the US of international terrorism in an internationally recognised court of law; the US recognised the World Court until it found the US guilty).
So then I chalenge you to name 1 anti-western terrorist organisation that Saddam Hussain has sponsored, I don't require proof that would stand up in a curt of law, just name an anti-western terrorist organisation he has sponsored.
Also cite me some proof that the Taliban were behind the 9/11 bombings. Find me some proof that the Taliban actually sponsored Al Qaeda. And find me some proof that Osama Bin Laden masterminded the 9/11 attacks. Find me some proof that he even knew about them before they happened.
"Hopefully whoever replaces him will be better, but if he's not, he'll probably get kicked too."
You really think that the West gives a shit about Iraq having a better leader? Saddam is the same person he was when he was our friend and ally, he was still gassing Kurds back then. If the person who replaces him continues to commit the same attrocities against his people that Saddam has (even if he ups the repression) then the West won't give a shit so long as its in the West's interests to back him.
General Al-Khazraji who led the chemical weapons attack at Halabja and kicks Kurdish children to death has apparantly, according to the US State Department "'a good military reputation' and 'the right ingredients' as a future leader in Iraq." Next George Bush will be calling General Al-Khazarji a 'defender of democracy' But then this shouldn't surprise us, the US has consistently backed appalingly brutal dictatorships.
Good or Evil has nothing to do with it, it's all about financial interests. It always has been.
|Posted on Tuesday, September 24, 2002 - 10:42 am: |
"Are any of us really that pathetically naive and idealistic that we'd believe the "war against evil" line? Come now, we're not ten years old, are we?"
Then why does your President and those around him keep spouting this line? He obviously thinks the American public swallow this otherwise he wouldn't keep saying it. And judging from attitudes of many US citizens that we see on TV coverage there would seem to be a lot of them than do swallow this line.
Maybe they should just stop and think for a minute about the 'axis of evil' that Bush talks about. Iraq, Iran and North Korea? They have are not allies and Iran and Iraq hate each other. What they do have common is that they represent a threat to Israel.
The hypocrisy of it all pisses me off. If you're going to bomb a regime out of existence (taking civilians casualties in the process) then why ot just be honest and say that this is a war to further US interests. Let's cut all the 'moral high ground' crap. If nobody believes it then what is the point of spouting such a lie?
|Posted on Tuesday, September 24, 2002 - 10:29 am: |
"I don't believe that any idea I, or any other person, has concieved is so unquestionably correct that it is appropriate to impose it upon another by force. "
Nor do I. I am opposed to imposing any idea on others.
|Posted on Tuesday, September 24, 2002 - 9:43 am: |
The problem with the "defending ourselves" aspect of the "war on terror" is that we woudln't have to defend ourselves if we hadn't pissed these people off by interfering in their region in the first place. Attacking Iraq is only going to INCREASE animosity towards the US.
Unlike many other nations that wage war, we AS A GENERAL RULE, do not target civilians.
Except when we do. (Dresden, Hiroshima, etc...)
Don't get me wrong, I genuinely do believe that we take more precations than, say, the Israelis when it comes to avoiding non-combatant casualties, but ANY war is going to hurt the civilian population, especially one which (like Iraq) is going to lead to a power vacuum and unrest.
If (and this is an ENOURMOUS if) Iraq has WMD's, there is no way we could GUARANTEE their use better than by striking first. And Iraq's target is going to be Israel. And we KNOW Israel has WMD's, and little remorse over civilian casualties. They didn't retaliate in 1991, but that was a much more moderate regime. They have said in no uncertain terms that they WILL retaliate this time. If we attack Iraq right now, we may be sparking another all-out Arab-Israeli war.
You don't have to be "anti-western" to see that as a bad idea.
As for "necessary to the funcioning of the industrial world", well, yes, for right now it is, but there is plenty of oil in the world that isn't in the Middle East. The reason the Middle East is so key is that the oil is PLENTIFUL and EASY TO ACCESS, which means it is CHEAP. We may need oil to a certain extent, but we use FAR more than we need to, simply because it is cheaper, for now, than developing alternatives. Western society would not crumble if we no longer had Middle Eastern oil. It would only have to slow down its pace of growth.
A war over oil is not a war to keep us from going cold in the winter; it's a war to maintain our accustomed level of luxury. I'm not comfortable with sacrificing innocent lives for that cause.
|Posted on Monday, September 23, 2002 - 10:57 pm: |
The War Against Terror, has a two fold purpose. One of those purposes, like it or not, is to defend the US from future attacks like those of a year ago. And good for them. Any nation on earth, save those incapable of doing so, would do the exact same thing. Left, right, center, it wouldn't matter.
Another reasoning for it is oil. And so what? Oil is necessary to the funcioning of the industrial world. I don't like that fact, but it's not going to change anytime soon.
The Taliban is gone. Good. Some civilians died, and that's sad, but it does happen. Unlike many other nations that wage war, we AS A GENERAL RULE, do not target civilians. Hopefully the folks that replace the Taliban will be better, but if they're not, whoever the big cheese is in 20 years will probably do the same thing we just did.
Iraq is probably going to get overthrown. Good. Hopefully civilian casualties will be nil. Saddams policy of putting military equipment on hospitals and such makes this hard, but we're pretty good at it. Hopefully whoever replaces him will be better, but if he's not, he'll probably get kicked too. I also stand by my assertion that Saddam Hussein is killing his own people. Madeline Albright is a political animal, and will say that the moon is made of cheese if it suits her party, and her goals. I could care less what you think of me, so I stand by what I say. I will try to dig up my findings later tonite.
Hob- why are you so anti-western? You seem to feel that we're all racist animals, and I think you're viewpoint is insulting, and shortsighted. Maybe the leftist media has blinded you a little?
|Posted on Monday, September 23, 2002 - 7:17 pm: |
So what's your point, Gob? Isn't that the purpose of any war?
This is a war solely to further Western interests abroad, nothing else matters.
Are any of us really that pathetically naive and idealistic that we'd believe the "war against evil" line? Come now, we're not ten years old, are we?