Mike Probably "Sigh..." would be the best response.
>On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, Keith Addison wrote: > > > So what? There are Americans who would like to overthrow the Bush > > regime too, and by force, and with the same stated aims. > >The difference is that the majority of Iraqis want Hussein out. Again, how do you know that? It's nothing but hearsay. And even if they did, what does that have to do with the US? It's simply none of your business. > > The US has supported many brutal disctatorships in the past which did > > just that - ah, but he's *our* dictator. And indeed, included among > > them for quite a long time was Saddam Hussein, just as brutal then as > > he is now. Times change, eh? Yesterday's freedom fighter, tomorrow's > > terrorist. > >I agree - I don't think we should ever give any aid to any country that >doesn't guarantee all of its citizens basic civil/human rights (freedom of >speech, religion, etc.). We have made huge mistakes in our dealings in the >middle east. We supported Hussein in his war on Iran because we decided >Iran was the "lesser of two evils" - primarily because Iran attacked >Kuwaiti oil tankers. Supporting someone because they are slightly less >evil than someone else is ridiculous. I don't think "evil" has anything to do with it either way, it's entirely pragmatic who gets supported and who doesn't. I doubt Big Oil saw the loss of Kuwaiti oil tankers in terms of "evil", nor anything to do with such issues as civil/human rights, freedom of speech and religion. Didn't make for nice numbers. The coup against Mossadeq also had nothing to do with those things, just numbers, and billions of barrels. >But, at the same time, when the leader of a country effectively declares >war on Americans, and offers rewards to anyone who kills an American, it >would be ridiculous to just pretend he'll leave us alone if we leave him >alone. "Live and let live" only works when BOTH groups involved use that >approach. But you haven't, have you? How many Middle Easterners would think the US has ever shown that attitude there? > > >If Germany had large oil reserves, then back in 1941 would you have been > > >saying that we shouldn't get involved militarily in what was going on in > > >Europe, because our motivation must be based strictly on oil, since there > > >is oil there? > > > > Are you quite certain you really want to ask me that, Mike? Because, > > frankly, it doesn't say very much for you. Anyway, I've never said US > >Why? If you insist. Because it's a spurious comparison, historically and in all other ways, there is nothing in common between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and Hitler's Germany; because oil played nothing remotely like the role then that it does now - as Hakan noted, it was a major issue in Japan's entering the war, but oil in today's Middle East is a completely different ball-game; and because of Godwin's Law - ie, it's a loaded question, and that reflects badly on you. > > Anyway, I've never said US > > motivations in the Middle East are strictly based on oil, and I've > > argued with those who have said that - just as much as with those > > who've claimed they're not based on oil at all. > >That was just my point. No, it was my point, and you agreed with it, then changed it for the sake of this Germany question. > > >The fact is, some people are just plain evil (malicious, egocentric, and > > >dangerous). > > > > That doesn't bother the US much, if at all. Evil's a bit emotive, but > > malicious, egocentric, and dangerous, sure: Pinochet, Mobutu, > > Savimbi, Marcos, Suharto... hey, what a long list, such nice fellers. > > Sharon. You're backing Musharraf in Pakistan now, a military dictator > > rolling back freedoms, allegedly sponsoring terrorist action in > > Indian Kashmir. > >I think it's ridiculous that we back Musharraf. Back to the issue of >backing the "lesser of two evils" - not a good policy. I also don't like >Sharon, but he is the elected leader of a democratic country. That's a big >difference between a self-appointed dictator. That also has nothing to do with it, US foreign policy doesn't care if leaders are democratically elected or not. Allende was democratically elected. The US seems rather to prefer dictators, less complicated. > > You backed a right bunch of bloodthirty murderers in > > Afghanistan. > >Who, the Northern Alliance? I agree, we shouldn't have backed them at all. >But, everytime there's any mention of sending US soldiers to take out a >leader so we can help the people establish a democracy, Sheesh!!! You are deluded. Go and study your history! >people start >screaming that we have no right to send troops in, to take out a leader, >etc. etc.. So, instead we end up supporting an opposition group, which is >a horrible way to do it. The model we follow for ANY military involvement >around the world should be what we did with Germany and Japan in WWII - >defeat the dictator, and follow MacArthur's plan for establishing a >democracy in its place. But, the UN is totally opposed to that. They'd >rather leave a tyrant in power and put sanctions on the country, which >just leads to the populace starving. Oh yeah, that's more humane. What wondrous rationalisations. > > If you declared war on Iraq over Kuwait, then why not on > > China over Tibet, or on Indonesia over East Timor? The US was deeply > >We can't get involved in EVERY problem around the world. How about this - >why is it that the same people who wanted the US to take military action >against China for invading Tibet criticize the US for taking military >action in other similar cases (Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Bosnia, Somalia, >etc.)? We had agreements to protect those countries, and came to their aid >when they were attacked. People then scream that we shouldn't try to play >international policemen. But the same people then yell at us for not >stepping in when other countries are attacked. So, which is it - are we >bad because we come to the aid of some countries in need, or are we bad >because we don't come to the aid of every country that's in need? Why >isn't some of the blame placed on the people who are actually committing >the atrocities in the first place, rather than the US for not stopping >them all the time? (and then blaming us for when we do, saying it's none >of our business) > Did all of the "free Tibet" protesters ever wonder if perhaps the >US would have been more likely to do something if we didn't get criticized >(by the same people, and much of the world) every time we involved >ourselves in other similar world affairs? More wondrous rationalizations. > > And so on and on. Whether leaders are malicious, > > egocentric, and dangerous just doesn't figure at all, it's whose > > "side" they're on, whose interests they serve, and that's all. > >That's why we have the UN - so countries can agree to work together to >protect and help each other. But most countries on the UN Security Council >refuse to follow that agreement, and just say "well, he hasn't attacked us >yet, so why should we get involved?". The purpose of protection agreements >like that is to deter acts of aggression, and quickly stop them when they >occur. But it only works when the countries involved aren't limp wristed >whiners who don't want to get involved when they haven't been attacked >yet. Have you perhaps noticed how the US has been breaking just about every UN agreement going, unilaterally, and conducting a positive campaign to replace UN officials who have their own opinions that might be different to Enron's - er, the White House? > > >Personally, I don't think our first priority right now should be going > > >after Saddam. > > > > Going after Saddam, taking "him" out... don't you feel a little > > uneasy about this depiction of Iraq as "Saddam", an entire nation and > > people reduced to one ultra-demonized man? When you see someone > >No, I have never reduced the entire nation to just "Saddam". I have said >repeatedly that most of the country wants him overthrown. According to you. >But, they are >relatively powerless to do it (thanks in part to the UN sanctions), since >he hoards all the money and military might and keeps the majority of the >populace in destitute conditions. Then he blames the US because the people >he is oppressing are starving to death. So you said, but it's the US that insisted on the sanctions, and on the murderous specifics of them. > > talking of "Saddam" you know what's coming next: calls for a > > "righteous" war. Saddam Hussein is not a maniacal monster, only the > > war-hungry in the US and Britain etc see him that way. He's not > >Try convincing families of the thousands and thousands of Iraqis he >has killed that he isn't a monster. The US has killed more Iraqis than Saddam has, they think the US is a monster. Most of the world doesn't see him as a monster, even the Kuwaitis have been getting on rather well with Iraq these days. But you're fixated, I can see. > > exactly a nice guy, you wouldn't want your sister to marry him, he's > > certainly most brutal, but no more so than many other brutish > > dictators around the world the US has propped up over the last 50 > > years, not as bad as some, smarter than most. > >We have supported a few dictators - and we never should have, nor ever >should in the future. Many dictators, and nothing much has changed. >Further, the "support" we gave them was to do >business with them. Other countries supported Saddam (in his war on Iran) >far more than the US - France and the former USSR in particular, who were >his main weapons suppliers. > > > There's no evidence > > he's mad, nor even remotely irrational, nor demonic. He had a > > go-ahead from the US to invade Kuwait (April Glaspie). And he knows > >April Glaspie (the US ambassador) told Saddam in 1990 that the US did not >intervene in border disputes. That is not a "go-ahead" to invade. Further, >since when does one ambassador have the permission to grant a dictator the >right to invade a country? U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - "I have direct instructions from President Bush to improve our relations with Iraq." U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - "We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America." (Saddam smiles) http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/april.html April Glaspie Transcript > > very well that using any WMDs he may have would get him rubbed right > > out very fast, and even short of that it would lose him his major > > victory so far - the withering of support for the US. It would unite > > the whole world against him. He's not dumb. He's no threat. > >True to a certain extent. The main way he's a threat is his willingness to >fund and arm terrorists. Personally, I feel other countries pose more of a >threat in that arena (Iran, possibly Saudi Arabia, etc.). And why might that be? These things just glance off your shield of rationalizations. >I don't think >Saddam should be our first priority, as I said. But, I do feel he is a >threat. I just think we should deal with more pressing threats first (such >as securing unguarded (or poorly guarded) nuclear weapons and fissionable >materials, finishing up with Al Quaeda, doing something about the >extremist groups in Indonesia, etc.). In other words generally meddle, be a world cop, kid yourself that it's in the name of justice and freedom rather than for the sake of corporate interests - not even the Cold War anymore. >I have not said that I think we >should go after him right now. > > > So how much does this next war really have to do with a rogue nation > > which allegedly has WMDs (of which there's no proof), and if they do > >So, you are apparently discounting the statements of scientists who were >on Saddam's nuclear weapons (and other WMD) programs, fled from Iraq, and >stated that they have been working on WMD, and have made a good deal of >chemical and biological weapons, and are within 5 years of having nuclear >weapons (if they have to provide the enriched uranium themselves. If they >can get their hands on some from elsewhere, then they could have one in a >month or two)? Yes, I'd discount those statements, as all your erstwhile allies do, as authorities like Jane's do. I'm sure Saddam Hussein would love to have a bomb, he's probably part way along that path, in the wake of Pakistan and India and others, possibly Iran too, but what do you think he'd do with it if he had it? Give it to a bunch of freelance terrorists to nuke New York? Nuke New York himself? He'd keep it, a card in his hand against his real enemies, Iran, Syria, Israel. Just as Israel keeps their bombs (you're happy about those, are you?), and Pakistan and India, so far, though US meddling in that area tips the scales more than somewhat. I'm afraid you're thoroughly spun by the US rhetoric, Mike. Keith >Mike >have them, so what, or with the so-called war on terrorism, or with >Big Oil interests, or with US elections and domestic popularity polls? > >It doesn't have much if anything to do with your "other valid reasons". > > >It should be securing the cold war era nukes and fissionable > >material (that are relatively poorly guarded) in the countries of the > >former Soviet Union, to try to prevent the MANY countries/organizations > >that want to get their hands on it from doing so. We should help Russia > >and the other countries build their economies, in exchange for letting us > >glassify all the fissionable material that's just sitting around. > >The IMF reduced Russia's economy by 50%, something never before >achieved in peacetime (and claims it as a success). This has done a >great deal to make Russia's nuclear material very much less secure. >The US has reduced its funding for Russia to secure its nuclear >material. > >Keith ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Sell a Home with Ease! http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/MVfIAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
