Not in my name

chill

Originally posted by bonkey
No, but maybe we should treat those who supplied him with the weapons for those trials as we will him and his cohorts for having used them, especially considering that supply of chemical-weapons technology continued after it was widely known that Saddam was using them.

A totally fair question and one which I would support fully. But not as an excuse to appease the user of those chemicals on hundreds of thousands of innocent people which is essentially the policy of the anti war movement.

You can apply this to the individuals from previous adminstrations if you wish (as you have said in an earlier post that you have no problem criticising the mistakes of the past), rather than to those who have inherited the mess if you like...

I agree fully subject to my rider above.

But seriously....do you not think that the US should be pointing at least some of those fingers at its own people and asking "How could you supply such a monster with such horriffic technology when you had knowledge of what he was actively using it for" ?????

Yet again I agree completely.

No, what galls most objectors is that there is no evidence that getting rid of Saddam in the manner in which it was done has any chance of causing any long-term improvements and plenty of historical precedent to indicate that, in all likelihood, it will make things worse.

Here I don't agree with you at all. The avoidance of tackling evil and of standing up in self defence in some sort of bizarre effort not to make things worse is a dilusion and a path to self destruction. The only way to tackle evil regimes and evil terrorists is to confront them and fight them to the finish. Is there a price in innocent lives ? there is. But I believe in that price and have never ending gratitude for those who paid that price for me to be free in our country, Ireland. That is what I believe.

Even should the US prove correct (and now that they've started this, I dearly hope for the Iraqi people that this does happen, despite not believing it will), it still does not answer the criticism that they had no guarantee of success, nor the question of who gave them the right to act unilaterally.

There are no "guarentees" of success ! What a redickulous concept for fighting against such evil forces and such oppressive and butchering regimes. And the right comes from the right of self defence on the one hand and in my personal opinion the right of good against evil. I ask you what 'right' had Saddam to stay in power and continue his murder, torture and rape ? What RIGHT had he to stay in power and stay in control of his country and people ?

Look at history...look at all of the big nations who were large enough to force their will on other nations for whatever reason. Ask yourself how much better they all made it, and where they are today. Ask yourself where the US long string of successes are. Then come back and tell me that I'm wrong to be concerned.

Yes I do look at history. I look at modern Europe and I see a vast and incredible success.
I look at Japan and I see a fantastic success story for American liberation.
I look at Russia and it's satellite states and I see a fantastic success that is not in any way finished but far far down the road to success.
I look at South Africa and I see a great success in progress.
Are there failures ? yes of course there are but the success is apparent.
No doubt in a moment you will find some bizarre grounds on which to label these as failures, or perhaps it wasn't America that brought these about at all, it was the Pope ! ?

.

mr_angry

Well, in fairness Chill, neither Europe not Japan were "saved" by the Americans exclusively. It was a lot of hard work on all sides. But granted, we have a lot to thank the American people for. However, there was also the issue of the American dropping nukes on a couple of Japanese cities. They had a lot to make up for.

As far as I can see, America has little to do with the rebirth of Eastern Europe and Russia, and as you pointed out, not a massive success so far. South Africa? Mostly turned around by the South African people themselves.

And while you mention the failures, you conveniently don't transcribe the rather long list of them. Putting them side-by-side with the successes would provide us with a less than encouraging overall picture, I think. Having said that, I think the American people in general are a great bunch of lads, but the administration is not moral enough. That is not to say they don't do any good (they got rid of Saddam - thats good), but I don't think they maintain the standards that we have set in the past 15 or so years, since the end of the cold war. Maybe my standards are too high?

sovtek

Originally posted by chill
I look at South Africa and I see a great success in progress.

The apartheid government actually recieved alot of support from America with it's war against Angola, as well as buying that uranium.
It wasn't until the press got a woody over SA in the late 70's early 80's (after Soweto riots basically) that America took any steps to put pressure on the apartheid government. Of course this was only overt, covertly they were supporting them in Angola.

shotamoose

Originally posted by chill
The answer is simple. You don't want to find it. You only want to report fictitious reports of US actions and US army deeds. You place no importance or value on the deaths of Iraqi people, only on attacking the US.

It is so transparent it is almost comical.

.

Chill, you're not doing yourself any favours by citing as fact an isolated claim unsupported by any evidence.

You've done the search yourself, so you know that the only 'evidence' for the claim of 600,000 in mass graves in Iraq comes from Jalal Talabani, a Kurdish representative on the Iraqi Governing Council. He seems to have taken the only semi-reliable estimate yet made and simply doubled it. That previous figure of 300,000 comes from the US Human Rights head in Iraq, who said it was equivalent to an estimated 240-ish mass graves, only about forty of which have been confirmed (link here ).

Which is not to say that there's not 240-ish mass graves, just that that's an estimate with no independent confirmation. As you've done the search I can only assume that you alraedy know this.

mr_angry

Originally posted by sovtek
The apartheid government actually recieved alot of support from America with it's war against Angola, as well as buying that uranium.
It wasn't until the press got a woody over SA in the late 70's early 80's (after Soweto riots basically) that America took any steps to put pressure on the apartheid government. Of course this was only overt, covertly they were supporting them in Angola.

In fainress Sovotek, I think you could do with some linkage there yourself.

sovtek

Originally posted by mr_angry
In fainress Sovotek, I think you could do with some linkage there yourself.

Ummm sorry, thought this was relatively common knowledge.
Might take me a bit.

mr_angry

Originally posted by sovtek
Ummm sorry, thought this was relatively common knowledge.
Might take me a bit.

In this thread? :eek:

Sand

:rolleyes:

Meanwhile, back on topic.

You got various randoms plus two Stop the War Coalition pages, one of which was simply a photo plus merchandise, none of it with any relevance, the other one a pamphlet which said that protests showed that "Tony Blair did not speak in the name of the British people". At the time, this was correct - as the BBC chart I posted above shows, a clear majority of Britains (and every other country surveyed) were opposed to a military intervention in Iraq without fresh UN support - which is exactly what happened.

I got plenty of backup for my point that the anti-war movement painted Bush and Blair as dictators - youre happily ignoring the big picture of Bush being toppled in an obvious parody of the Iraqis toppling Saddams statue in Baghdad....Sorry, is that not meant to portray Bush as a Dictator?

And Im glad they had plenty of support then - the fact that they now do not shows just how fickle public opinion is and how foolish the notion of basing policy upon the latest poll findings is - Now the anti-war movement is trapped by its own logic and clever slogans..... their protests are "Not in my name" as they put it. They are as guilty as Bush and Blair was of ignoring the wishes of the public as exspressed in the polls. Theyre hypocrites.

The trend since then is more ambiguous. Opposition to the war slid as soon as combat began, suggesting that British people, being a patriotic lot, wanted to support their troops once the war was under way. It has been going down ever since as the consequences become clearer, so that once again those who support the war are in a minority, though so are those who were against it. None of which makes the anti-war protestors wrong for continuing to protest.

Does it matter why support has gone one way or the other? Blair and Bush used similar logic to justify why they ignored the polls - it basically boiled down to were smarter than what the polls say, and now youre using the same logic - were smarter than the polls, theyre just the result of foolish patriotism blinding them to the truth.

Either way it shows why polls arent a sound basis for policy making. Elections yes. Referendums yes. Polls no. Politicians should certainly pay attention to how popular policys seem to be because they want to get re-elected but as demonstrated by the Iraq war public opinion can turn on a six pence. 6 months down the line public opinion could be against the war again, even heavier than before.

bonkey

Originally posted by chill
Yes I do look at history. I look at modern Europe and I see a vast and incredible success.

So do I....except that I understand it to be because European nations are tired of seeing their own nations torn apart by ceaseless, endless, senseless wars which could have been avoided.

The US, on the other hand, has never fought a significant war against a foreign enemy on its own soil.

I find it somewhat enlightening to take these two points and view the responses to threat that comes from both nations.

The European nations who were at the heart of the last two great wars (i.e. France and Germany) said "war is not the answer".

The US, who - as I said - have never had their homeland ravaged by non-domestic war (as opposed to civil war and isolated attacks such as Pearl harbour) say "we are taking the fight abroad so we don't have to fight it at home".

You clearly think the US approach is the better answer, whereas I tend to think that - despite their innumerable flaws and hypocracies - the French and Germans are beginning to understand that the only way to not have to fight this war at home, is to stop giving other people a reason to fight a war against you.

Look at Rumsfeld's infamous "leaked" memo, where he admitted the US lacks the means to determine whether or not by its current course of action it is creating more terrorists than it defeats. Sure, they can rip Al Qaeda apart, and reduce today's threat, but they will never win the war while it is their own actions which are the primary reason for them being attacked.

Yes, I know, you will take this as another "pro-oppression" rant of mine, but in my opinion, it is time for the US and the ex-Imperial powers to face up to two simple facts :

1) Much of this mess is caused by the crap they left behind after years/centuries of subjugation and mistreatment of weaker nations.

2) Much of the rest of this mess is caused by the continuation of subjugation and mistreatment of a lesser scale in a different name.

I look at Japan and I see a fantastic success story for American liberation.

Liberation from whom? The Japenese adored their emporer. They considered him to be an incarnate deity. Was this not the argument that the US used to justify the need for nuking the nation...twice? They alleged that the Japenese were so fiercely loyal that they would never surrender. Now you're trying to tell me it wasn't loyalty but subjugation, and it wasn't a military defeat of an aggressor, but rather a "liberation" ?????

Chill...seriously man...I've heard of revisionist history, but this is beginning to take the biscuit.

I look at Russia and it's satellite states and I see a fantastic success that is not in any way finished but far far down the road to success.
I look at South Africa and I see a great success in progress.

And what exactly did the US military might do to achieve these successes short of staying the fsck out of things? These are cases which support exactly the point I'm making Chill, not you. I'm saying that military intervention does not solve the problem. Humanitarian, economic, and social pressures do the job. They did it with SA, they are doing it with Russia, China, and numerous other nations.

But I asked for any nation where an aggressor has chosen to go and "liberate" which is a success story of a comparable degree. You haven't listed a single one.

Are there failures ? yes of course there are but the success is apparent.

Yes it is...and in no case did the US go and liberate a people it decided needed liberation. It either defended itself against an aggressor (and if you are going to assert that Iraq was an aggressor towards the US, I'd like some clear evidence please), or it achieved its aims through non-militaristic means.

No doubt in a moment you will find some bizarre grounds on which to label these as failures, or perhaps it wasn't America that brought these about at all, it was the Pope !?

Not in the slightest....it was mostly America's doing - both the good and the bad to come out of it (e.g. Russia is well on its way to being a decent nation, except that real incomes today are below the levels they were at in 1990, mostly as a result of US-backed IMF-enforced initiatives to "improve" things there. For reference, read Josef Stiglitz' "Globalisation and its Discontents"). But yes, the US has been the driving force behind so many nations choosing to get into this whole democracy and capitalist lark. And despite screwups like the IMF, the WTO, and so many other things, I still believe that this is by and large a good thing. Its in need of improvement, and I will continue to point that out, but it is a good thing.

However, these cases were not where the US decided a nation needed "liberation" and went in all guns blazing to force it upon them. They were nations where the "carrot and stick" approach was taken, over time, and results showed.

Iraq was offered the "stick, followed by the bomb" approach. Indeed, one of the many criticisms levelled at the US long before the "liberation" of Iraq started was that there was no evidence supporting the use of prolonged sanctions in order to achieve something. Sanctions coupled with incentives were what was required. Thats what worked with China, Russia, SA, etc. etc. etc. So what did we get with Iraq? More sancitons, no incentives, dictates issued by the US and UK without UN sanction about what must be done, and ultimately an invasion.

So I don't need to question the success stories you posted, Chill....they are utterly irrelevant to your argument and only serve to strengthen mine. War is not, never has been, nor will be the answer. If your'e still in doubt about that concerning the WW2 nations....ask the leaders who started it.

Oh...wait....they all lost.

jc

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
youre happily ignoring the big picture of Bush being toppled in an obvious parody of the Iraqis toppling Saddams statue in Baghdad....Sorry, is that not meant to portray Bush as a Dictator?

Actually, I think there was a more subtle reasoning behind that. The toppling of the statue of Saddam was staged. Draw your own conclusions.

how foolish the notion of basing policy upon the latest poll findings is

Policy shouldn't be based on poll findings...I agree.
However, policy should be based on agreements that nations have signed up to, and by unilaterally ignoring the UN's decision making process as well as the public, the US and UK administrations showed that they are concerned about one thing and one thing only and thats what they want themselves. Nothing more, nothing less.

There are those who say that such a "brave" attitude is to be applauded....but the last major nation to have such a similar "I will get what I want" attitude backed by a willingness to go to war in order to achieve it sparked off the Second World War when they annexed some living space. Strangely enough, it is said nation, and its most war-torn influential neighbour who are now standing up and saying "war is not the answer".

- Now the anti-war movement is trapped by its own logic and clever slogans..... their protests are "Not in my name" as they put it. They are as guilty as Bush and Blair was of ignoring the wishes of the public as exspressed in the polls. Theyre hypocrites.

No, they are not hypocrites. I've raised the point before about the fact that a minority group insisting that their elected officials should do something is not anti-democratic. I can't think of a single protestor or protest which said "stop because we are in the majority". They said "stop because what you are doing is wrong and we are in the majority".

At best, you can argue that their argument carries less weight today (and not just because it has less popular support), but thats a far cry from hypocracy.

now youre using the same logic - were smarter than the polls, theyre just the result of foolish patriotism blinding them to the truth.

Sorry, but thats just horsesh1t.
The poll which was originally the protestor's "lifeline" simply asked whether or not the pollee supported the US/UK going to war with Iraq - with and/or without a UN sanction. Straight up question. No room for interpretation as to what this implies about whether or not you support the war.

Your chosen poll (at least at the start of all of this) was whether or not people see the US as being "generally a good thing".

Now in all honesty Sand...can you honestly tell me that your chosen poll is as directly applicable to a situation that it specifically avoids mentioning in its generalities as the "do you support a war in Iraq" one was to whether or not people supported a war in Iraq?

No, really....can you?

Either way it shows why polls arent a sound basis for policy making.

Hand-wavingly abstract polls being applied to concrete situations (like the one you are using as the basis for you entire argument) shouldn't be used as anything more than a sound basis for showing first-year students how flawed polls can be.

Honest polls, where the questions are specifically directed at an issue rather than an agenda, and where the available answers are honestly balanced (i.e. not 6 ways of saying no, one maybe and one yes) can be used as a solid sounding board as long as they are applied honestly (e.g. I notice your penchant for interpreting X opposed, Y supporting, Z undecided) as meaning "Y+Z are not opposed" when it suits you, But "X+Z do not support" when thats a better figure) are a terribly useful tool.

Politicians know this, and do and should take polls into account. They should not be ruled by them, I agree, nor should people expect them to.

But I don't think anyone ever stood up and said "because we are in the majority, and for no other reason, you must stop". if I'm wrong, please point it out, but I recall that the moral majority never stood on an argument of simply being the majority.

What is needed, though, is for at the next US election (or in the primaries) , a sizeable number of people who are asked say "I didn't vote for Bush because he ignored our opinion that it was wrong to go to war". Then maybe politicians would start listening to protests when they get large enough.

Today, its just a bunch of noisy goldfish. If those goldfish could remember to carry those convictions through to the next election, and make it clear where those convictions came from....maybe we'd stop seeing so many democratic governments around the world treating an X year term of office as "X-1 of what you want, with the last year being set aside for 'suck up to the voters again'".

demonstrated by the Iraq war public opinion can turn on a six pence. 6 months down the line public opinion could be against the war again, even heavier than before.

Sorry...I haven't seen a single poll since the war which said "were we right to go to war". I have seen "are they doing a good job", "do you like them", "do you support what they are doing today", etc. etc. etc., but not a single "should they have started all of this" poll, so I have no idea where you're getting this "turn on a six-pence" notion.

Show the figures Sand. Don't interpret something that says something close to something which could be interpreted to mean something close to this. Show the actual honest-to-god poll of "were we right to go to war, now that we're where we're at", and you can make those statements. Until then, you're only misinterpreting information to suit your own agenda, so laying claims of hypocracy at people doing similarly would seem......well, you have a guess

jc

chill

Originally posted by mr_angry
Well, in fairness Chill, neither Europe not Japan were "saved" by the Americans exclusively. It was a lot of hard work on all sides. But granted, we have a lot to thank the American people for. However, there was also the issue of the American dropping nukes on a couple of Japanese cities. They had a lot to make up for.

Firstly no one said they did it alone, but there is no doubt whatsoever that it could not have been done without them, hard though the Brits and Russians tried. Not that I enoy they way they remind everyone when they expect people to jump on board everything they want to do.
Also their nukes saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese and American lives, maybe even millions. A nasty job but I am glad, on balance, that they did it.

As far as I can see, America has little to do with the rebirth of Eastern Europe and Russia, and as you pointed out, not a massive success so far. South Africa? Mostly turned around by the South African people themselves.

Yeah right The collapse of the Soviet Union was a direct result of the arms race and the pressure from the US. It may not be perfect, not even nearly perfect but a success it definitely is. And South Africa was not freed by the South Africans but by international pressure and the biggest and most effective pressure was from the US. Whereas the UK, through Thatcher did nothing to help it.

And while you mention the failures, you conveniently don't transcribe the rather long list of them. Putting them side-by-side with the successes would provide us with a less than encouraging overall picture, I think.

The comparison is subject but there is no doubt that the US administrations over the years have been uniquely inept and incompetent in many of their adventures and then there are the downright wrong adventures like Nicaragua and of course Vietnam, though amny of the others are very minor in scale.

As a European I have to say though that we in Europe are in a poor situation to complain about the US considering the fact that Europe has distinguished itself in avoiding any serious investment in collective military capability over the last fifty years. It has avoided the responsibility of taking difficult decisions because of this lack of capability and even when an eruption happens in the heart of Europe, in Yugoslavia, it has to call on the US to clean up it's own mess. If we cannot even do that we can hardly complain much about how the US goes about it.
In my opinion the sooner Europe develops collective military capability the sooner some balance can come about to the power and ease of action of the US military machine.

.

chill

Originally posted by sovtek
The apartheid government actually recieved alot of support from America with it's war against Angola, as well as buying that uranium.
It wasn't until the press got a woody over SA in the late 70's early 80's (after Soweto riots basically) that America took any steps to put pressure on the apartheid government. Of course this was only overt, covertly they were supporting them in Angola.

Many countries and democratic countries at that worked with the SA Gov over th decades. That doesn't negate the part the US played in it's collapse.

chill

Originally posted by bonkey
So do I....except that I understand it to be because European nations are tired of seeing their own nations torn apart by ceaseless, endless, senseless wars which could have been avoided.

You are transparently manipulating the context of my comment. I made that comment in response to the suggestion by you:

"Look at history...look at all of the big nations who were large enough to force their will on other nations for whatever reason. Ask yourself how much better they all made it, and where they are today. Ask yourself where the US long string of successes are. Then come back and tell me that I'm wrong to be concerned."

The clear fact is that the liberation of Europe, mainly by the US is an incredible success.

The European nations who were at the heart of the last two great wars (i.e. France and Germany) said "war is not the answer".

The US, who - as I said - have never had their homeland ravaged by non-domestic war (as opposed to civil war and isolated attacks such as Pearl harbour) say "we are taking the fight abroad so we don't have to fight it at home".

You clearly think the US approach is the better answer, whereas I tend to think that - despite their innumerable flaws and hypocracies - the French and Germans are beginning to understand that the only way to not have to fight this war at home, is to stop giving other people a reason to fight a war against you.

While you make an interesting point I would suggest that you are comparing apples and oranges. The Europeans change of heart and "War is not the answer" is a concept borne out of Intra-European wars . . . . not wars with outside forces !
The American concept of "taking the fight abroad" is a concept borne out of being threatened by completely outside and overseas forces. These concepts cannot be directly contrasted legitimately.

Look at Rumsfeld's infamous "leaked" memo, where he admitted the US lacks the means to determine whether or not by its current course of action it is creating more terrorists than it defeats. Sure, they can rip Al Qaeda apart, and reduce today's threat, but they will never win the war while it is their own actions which are the primary reason for them being attacked.

I'm not sure if that is a direct quote or not, but your use of it is misleading. This leaked memo was a brain storming memo intended to trigger innovative and out-of-the-box thinking among his staff. It was not a serious suggestion about the US policy.

I personally don't believe fighting terror creates more terrorists. However while I say that I am a complete believer in the fact that the US's wrong policy in Palestine is at the heart of the cause of the terror wave, and that the current brand of Al Quida terror cannot be tackled effectively until that sore is lanced.

Yes, I know, you will take this as another "pro-oppression" rant of mine, but in my opinion, it is time for the US and the ex-Imperial powers to face up to two simple facts :

Firstly I have to say that most fo the world is an ex-imperial power in some way somewhere in the past and to sit back in a judgemental way and lay all of the ills of the world on them is a vaccuous and futile exercise.

1) Much of this mess is caused by the crap they left behind after years/centuries of subjugation and mistreatment of weaker nations.

A seemingly attractive summation but one that is extraordinarily simplistic. The history of humanity is one of constant too'ing an fro'ing and conquering and being conquered and any effort to focus blame is a witless and pointless process imho.

2) Much of the rest of this mess is caused by the continuation of subjugation and mistreatment of a lesser scale in a different name.

Again, this is such a generalisation of human behaviour that it ends up meaning little.

If people and countries didn't compete and battle and look after their own needs first and last the world would be a far better place.... I agree.

Liberation from whom?

Liberation of the far east from the Japanese all conquering expansion ? Remember that ?

The Japenese adored their emporer. They considered him to be an incarnate deity. Was this not the argument that the US used to justify the need for nuking the nation...twice? They alleged that the Japenese were so fiercely loyal that they would never surrender.

While I agree with this point, it doesn't mean that the Japanese chose to be ruled by their emperor. There was opposition his rule throughout Japan but this was brutally oppressed and there was no democratic 'choice' for the people.
Hence the people of Japan were indeed liberated.

Now you're trying to tell me it wasn't loyalty but subjugation, and it wasn't a military defeat of an aggressor, but rather a "liberation" ?????

Yes. You seem to be trying to claim that the people of Japan chose to be ruled by the Emperor ? How bizarre is that !

Chill...seriously man...I've heard of revisionist history, but this is beginning to take the biscuit.

Accepted. If you don't agree, then tell me where I am wrong and hold off the biscuit jokes..

And what exactly did the US military might do to achieve these successes short of staying the fsck out of things? These are cases which support exactly the point I'm making Chill, not you. I'm saying that military intervention does not solve the problem. Humanitarian, economic, and social pressures do the job. They did it with SA, they are doing it with Russia, China, and numerous other nations.

It was the US military build up and the arms race that was at the heart of the death of the Soviet Union.

THIS was the question I was responding to:

" Ask yourself where the US long string of successes are".

And I responded with that of Russia as you point out. You did not make any mention of 'Military' successes. Rather it was a question of US policy.

Secondly the US was indeed essentially the power that brought about the collapse of the Soviet system and the apartheid system.

...and in no case did the US go and liberate a people it decided needed liberation. It either defended itself against an aggressor (and if you are going to assert that Iraq was an aggressor towards the US, I'd like some clear evidence please), or it achieved its aims through non-militaristic means.

I just gave a list of examples. You just ignore them to suit your argument.

However, these cases were not where the US decided a nation needed "liberation" and went in all guns blazing to force it upon them. They were nations where the "carrot and stick" approach was taken, over time, and results showed.

There was no carrot and stick with Hitler, and none with Japan. It's incredible how you manage to consistently brush them asie as if they were minor events.

Iraq was offered the "stick, followed by the bomb" approach.

This is so untrue it's comical. Iraq was forced out of Kuwait by the Allies only by force and the UN spent ten years using carrots and sticks galore to try to curb Saddam's excesses and threats to the world.

Indeed, one of the many criticisms levelled at the US long before the "liberation" of Iraq started was that there was no evidence supporting the use of prolonged sanctions in order to achieve something. Sanctions coupled with incentives were what was required.

And that is exactly what was effected against Saddam. The problem those who hold your opinions have is that it was and is apparent to anyone with any sense at all that Saddam was totally and utterly intransigent and was never ever going to respond positively and he demonstrated it over and over again over ten years.

Thats what worked with China,

Ahem... there has been no democratic change in China. There has been no carrot and stick pressure on them either.

Russia, SA, etc. etc. etc. So what did we get with Iraq? More sancitons, no incentives, dictates issued by the US and UK without UN sanction about what must be done, and ultimately an invasion.

No. Not enough sanctions, too much carrot and a mass murderer determined to continue. Action was the last resort.

So I don't need to question the success stories you posted, Chill....they are utterly irrelevant to your argument and only serve to strengthen mine. War is not, never has been, nor will be the answer. If your'e still in doubt about that concerning the WW2 nations....ask the leaders who started it.

Hitler was only defeated by war, the same went for Hirohito and Milosovic and Saddam etc etc.

Fact is sometimes war is the only solution and sadly many in the cosy corners of an increasingly lazy and decadent democratic west have forgotten that.

While there are enormous gulfs between my beliefs and those of right wing america this is one area where I agree with them.

Evil doesn't respond to warm milk and cookies. We need proactive military action from the civilised world against these evil extremist terrorists who care nothing for human life, and who care nothing for negotiation because they want to wipe us off the earth.
Where I have common ground with you is that military action cannot be a panacea, only as an act of last resort and while places liek Palestine are left to fester there will be no end to this wave of terrorism and the therat to the very existence of modern civilisation.

Sand

Actually, I think there was a more subtle reasoning behind that. The toppling of the statue of Saddam was staged. Draw your own conclusions.

Im sorry - given the rather .... basic level of their slogans/ideals/chants I cant assign much in the way of subtlty to the anti-war movement. They tend to wear their heart on their sleeve.

There are those who say that such a "brave" attitude is to be applauded....but the last major nation to have such a similar "I will get what I want" attitude backed by a willingness to go to war in order to achieve it sparked off the Second World War when they annexed some living space. Strangely enough, it is said nation, and its most war-torn influential neighbour who are now standing up and saying "war is not the answer".

No major nation has ever been bound by respect for international law. Merely by other major powers threatening to raise the stakes if they should attempt to do as they wish when they wish. France and Britain dont forget engaged in some high adventure in the Suez canal in the brave new post war UN world, only to be scolded by the U.S. ( ironic huh ) for doing so. France and Britain and the other European colonial powers fought wars against their former subjects to retain their empires in the same world ( the world in which they had learnt the futility of war by the mass death of the two world wars remember? ), the French wars in indo-china leading on to the US involvement in Vietnam, the Korean War wasnt ended by the UN/American forces respect for their mandate to merely defend South Korea but by Chinas commitment of its troops to stop the invasion of North Korea. The said nation and its most war torn influential neighbour are acting no different than the same minor nations they encountered when they were major powers - the situation is now reversed so no wonder theyre uncomftable to learn the important decisions are not being made in Paris or Berlin.

I could go on but the point is made. International law is not a check on major nations ambitions, other major nations are - no one stopped the atrocities in Rwana, least of all international law, no one stopped Srebinica, least of all the UN. If the US has to ignore interntional law to accomplish a good thing then so be it - its more an indictment of the state of international law, which to my mind has always been framed to maintain the status quo rather than to improve the lot of humanity. that doesnt mean the US is always right or always has been , but it has carried out as many dirty wars back in the UNs golden era when everyone apparently followed international law, you know, before bush showed up and suddenly the US ignored it.

Regardless this is not really the topic at hand - open another thread and Ill be happy to continue the debate on whether the US is acting any different to any other major nation throughout history.

No, they are not hypocrites. I've raised the point before about the fact that a minority group insisting that their elected officials should do something is not anti-democratic. I can't think of a single protestor or protest which said "stop because we are in the majority". They said "stop because what you are doing is wrong and we are in the majority".

Of course not - I never said they were. But if theyre going to say that Bush and Blair are anti-democratic because the polls do not agree with Blair and Bushes policy then , logically, when the polls do not agree with the anti-war movement then they *must* also be anti-democratic. Remember both the government and the anti-protest movement have the same obligation to poll findings .... **** all. If the anti-war movment are going to define some sort of obligation to poll findings, then they must accept they have an obligation too - or else its merely do as I say, not as I do?

Unless of course the anti-war movement were talking crap when they painted blair and bush as dictators. Which is what I believe personally.

At best, you can argue that their argument carries less weight today (and not just because it has less popular support), but thats a far cry from hypocracy.

No, I could argue their argument carries little to no weight today or back in May - But Im arguing theyre hypocrites for making the polled opinion such a big part of their case - even down to the "not in my name" slogan, and yet now they happily ignore the polled opinion - I see opportunism and hypocrisy in that from the very crowd who are claiming to be holier than thou.

No, really....can you?

Can Dave get out of this fix...tune in next week same time, same forum.....

Yes I can actually. The polled response you refferred to was merely one of the questions asked - heres the link again so you dont have to go back http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1087545,00.html

Question 3 was do you think the war was justified.. largest bloc of those polled 47% believed the war was justifed - even though the UN has not as yet given a resolution to support the invasion and has been quite sulky in its reaction to Iraqs liberation.

Question 4 asked do you think the troops should stay until he situation is calm etc etc? 67% believed they should ---this most accurately reflects those who believe the war was justified *AND* those who believe the war wrong but the troops need to be supported. This does not reflect the "End the occupation now!" ****e were hearing from the anti-war movement.

And only 36% opposed the visit of Bush that the protestors were out protesting about.

Whatever way you look at it the protestors werent the voice of the people.

Hand-wavingly abstract polls being applied to concrete situations (like the one you are using as the basis for you entire argument) shouldn't be used as anything more than a sound basis for showing first-year students how flawed polls can be.

But it wasnt hand wavingly abstract - see above:)

But I don't think anyone ever stood up and said "because we are in the majority, and for no other reason, you must stop". if I'm wrong, please point it out, but I recall that the moral majority never stood on an argument of simply being the majority.

Ah but the anti-war movment have wrapped themselves in the cloak of the defenders of democracy when they were in the majority of polled opinion ..... Being moral has never been dependant on being the majority, but its a good exscuse for pretending youre the moral majority as the anti-war movment thought. The liberation of Iraq was the moral course of action and wheter 1% or 99% agree with that statement it doesnt affect my belief that it was the moral course of action - despite the participants. The polled opinion has not been a role in my arguments for the liberation, it should not have been for the anti-war movement either. They made their bed, they can now lie in it.

Sorry...I haven't seen a single poll since the war which said "were we right to go to war".

No, but youve seen one which asked if the war was justifed......

mr_angry

Terrorism doesn't spring up out of pure evil intent. Yes, pehaps there is an evil 'orchestrator' at the centre of it, but the vast majority of terrorism springs out of fear. In Northern Ireland, the IRA sprung up after Nationalist people were being burned out of their homes. They were afraid, the police force weren't doing anything about it, and so they turned to their own form of protection - the paramilitaries.

Much the same story in Palastine - the people are very much mistreated, and they are afraid that they are going to be blown up, starve, get some disease, or watch their families die of one. All they get from the Israelis is a couple of tank shells in the neighbourhood. They are afraid. And so, in desperation, they turn to the people who say they can change things.

On a slightly different scale, Al Quieda has sprung out of similar fears, but in an International context. The Arab people (sorry for the generalisation here, no offence) see their part of the world being marginalised by the West, and treated badly. They fear being ruled economically by the USA, and so they attack.

It is this fear that turns moderate people of all religions and backgrounds to become fundamentalists and support terrorism. It was highlighted very well in Israel - the people were mostly moderate, and in favour of a peaceful solution with the Palestinians until Yhitsak Rhabin was shot, and a couple of suicide bombers decided to take out a busload of innocent civilians. Fear was introduced. What did they do? They became hardliners, and voted in Arial Sharon, who promised to deal with the Palestinians "once and for all".

Now whether Donald Rumsfeld meant those comments in the context of encouraging creative thinking, or whether he was talking about current foreign policy makes little difference - its the truth. Is the USA's foreign policy really halting the spread of terrorism around the world, and in particular, against US interests? I don't think so. Does the average moderate Iraqi feel safe these days? I doubt it. Are some of them turning to paramilitaries to stop themselves being harassed by other militants. Why yes, I do believe they are.

The US may have toppled Saddam, but have they made the world a safer place for themselves and the ordinary Iraqi? Not yet.

Are the people of Afghanistan really that much safer than they were during the Taliban reign? Chill says they are "deliriously happy". I would be less optimistic.

I think its great that the US is toppling evil dictators, I really do. But are their methods creating a safer world, for you, me, the Afghanis, or the Iraqis? Not so far. And in the long run, are they creating more terrorists, or less terrorists, in the supposed "War On Terror"? I would hesitantly say "more".

And, just to finish:

Also their nukes saved hundreds of thousands of Japanese and American lives, maybe even millions. A nasty job but I am glad, on balance, that they did it.

Ok, so they killed a couple of hundred thousand Japanese people (340,000 to be exact) just to save hundreds of thousands of lives? Who did the maths on that?

And I can't believe you said you were glad they did it. And you can say with supposed rightousness that you have more regard for human life than the terrorists. That disgusts me. If you had any credibility before,

---

>WHAM!

There it just went.

Goodnight.

monument

Originally posted by mr_angry
Are the people of Afghanistan really that much safer than they were during the Taliban reign? Chill says they are "deliriously happy". I would be less optimistic.

Chill, why was Afghanistan not in your list of so called free states you gave me the other day?

You have a few good points there mr_angry.

Redleslie

Originally posted by Sand
If the US has to ignore interntional law to accomplish a good thing then so be it -

So this is a good thing.



Rofl.

And If the IRA have to ignore the law and blow up a few people to accomplish a good thing then so be it. And if al-queda have to ignore the law and fly planes into buildings to accomplish a good thing then so be it. Who decides what's a good thing? The people? Nope. Technically, neither the IRA or al-queda had democratic mandates to do their respective things but it's all cool because according to your logic, mandates aren't important since "Being moral has never been dependant on being the majority."

Oh yeah, again, British people protested against a war their country helped to start, a war which was based wholly on lies, the WMD and all that. It is NOT hypocritical of them to fail to protest against one they have absolutely no involvement in, ie Russia v Chechnya. This will sink in soon hopefully.

Originally posted by Redleslie
It is NOT hypocritical of them to fail to protest against one they have absolutely no involvement in, ie Russia v Chechnya. This will sink in soon hopefully.

The point is , Putins record deserves hundreds of thousands out on the streets as much if not more so than for Bush.
Putins image with a moustache would be more deserving.

But this did not happen even though he was there for all to see smiling in that carriage with the queen riding down the mall.

Thats whats lamentable,the fact that it was convenient to rally the masses to go out and protest Bush but not Putin.
The different treatment in the light of the worse record is lamentable.

mm

sovtek

Originally posted by chill
And South Africa was not freed by the South Africans but by international pressure and the biggest and most effective pressure was from the US. Whereas the UK, through Thatcher did nothing to help it.

The eligible voters of SA (ie WHITE) voted for one man one vote. International pressure helped..yes but it was the threat of a civil war (the armed wing of the ANC was trained and armed by the USSR) that finally got the NP to oust (on national TV without forwarning) P Botha in favor of a moderate DeKlerk in aid of negotiating with the ANC.
Reagan nor Thatcher did much at all other than spout rhetoric.

The comparison is subject but there is no doubt that the US administrations over the years have been uniquely inept and incompetent in many of their adventures and then there are the downright wrong adventures like Nicaragua and of course Vietnam, though amny of the others are very minor in scale.

There is an oft repeated line "that was a mistake but..." then you look at the declassified documents and see that, nope actually they didn't make a mistake at alll...they knew exactly what they were doing and who was being killed.

Anyway....offtopic?

gurramok

Thats whats lamentable,the fact that it was convenient to rally the masses to go out and protest Bush but not Putin.

Funnily enough, there were no mass supporters out on the streets supporting the visit and shouting down those that opposed it

Putins reputed deal with Bush\Blair to turn a blind eye to invasion of Iraq in return for Bush\Blair turning a blind eye to Chechnya should be an inspiration to British protesters to protest against their country's involvement in Iraq and not Chechnya.

chill

Originally posted by mr_angry
Snipped---- Lots of soppy tearjerking stuff that brought a tear to my eye...

Ok, so they killed a couple of hundred thousand Japanese people (340,000 to be exact) just to save hundreds of thousands of lives? Who did the maths on that?

And I can't believe you said you were glad they did it. And you can say with supposed rightousness that you have more regard for human life than the terrorists. That disgusts me. If you had any credibility before

My opinion being different to yours doesn't diminish my credibility ... except in your intolerent and bippolar viewpoint.

Your sense of proportion and of comparable morality is appalling if that is how you judge 1945/6 and mass murdering terrorists in the 21st century.

.

chill

Originally posted by monument
Chill, why was Afghanistan not in your list of so called free states you gave me the other day?

Because I wouldn't call them 'free' as yet. Well on their way toward it though, depending on how much real help the west offers as opposed to just platitudes and money.

chill

Originally posted by sovtek
The eligible voters of SA (ie WHITE) voted for one man one vote. International pressure helped..yes but it was the threat of a civil war (the armed wing of the ANC was trained and armed by the USSR) that finally got the NP to oust (on national TV without forwarning) P Botha in favor of a moderate DeKlerk in aid of negotiating with the ANC. Reagan nor Thatcher did much at all other than spout rhetoric.

Thatcher did nothing but the US played a huge role behind the scenes bringing enormous pressure on the white racist minority. The spectre of civil war was a key result of US covert political and financial action. The Russian input was minor and overplayed by the SA media.

.

monument

Originally posted by chill
Because I wouldn't call them 'free' as yet. Well on their way toward it though, depending on how much real help the west offers as opposed to just platitudes and money.

And you can really say that the people are now better off?

Victor

Originally posted by chill
Thatcher did nothing but the US played a huge role behind the scenes bringing enormous pressure on the white racist minority.

Not quite, business was upset it couldn't trade with SA without upsetting it's customer base.

Originally posted by chill
The spectre of civil war was a key result of US covert political and financial action. The Russian input was minor and overplayed by the SA media.

Cubans in Angola, sponsoring African nationalism, arms to Mozambique ... nothing?

chill

Originally posted by monument
And you can really say that the people are now better off?

Monumentally.

Sand

So this is a good thing.

Ah the classic strawman argument. A argues for X. B cannot counter X so instead invents Y and claims A was arguing for it instead. By countering his own invented argument, Y, he then believes he has countered As actual argument, X. This despite the fact that X!=Y. Textbook stuff redleslie.

Also youre attempting to drag the topic off post - now whilst Chill has done an appallingly good job at dragging this thread about 150 miles off topic, Im doing my best to try and ensure it is reasonably connected to the original topic.No doubt for those goldfish out there its all terribly new and exciting its extremely tired and boring to people like myself whove seen it before and dont need it polluting *every* thread out there. Theres no charge for opening new threads - if you, chill or whoever else feel like we need to run "The case for Iraq - new thread, same old ****" or "Why I hate Bush/Neocons" or "Why Michael Moore is the smartest/funniest man alive" again feel absolutely free to open a new thread, there is absolutely no cost to you and we do not have to conserve thread titles like they were becoming extinct, and who knows in the highly unlikely event that a new point of view surfaces then Ill be happy to comment there.

I mean for christ sake - South Africas emancipation? Surely so complex a topic deserves its own thread?!?

Oh yeah, again, British people protested against a war their country helped to start, a war which was based wholly on lies, the WMD and all that. It is NOT hypocritical of them to fail to protest against one they have absolutely no involvement in, ie Russia v Chechnya. This will sink in soon hopefully.

Ah at last - something on topic! So you agree that the British protests were not based on the principle that war crimes or wars without UN authorisation and oversight are wrong - only the fact Britain was involved brought them out? So why did they come out for Bush - hes not British? Why are they so concerned with the plight of the Palestinians or the Middle East if theyre only motivated by direct British involvement?

Thanks - more confirmation that the anti-war movement pays only lip service to its claimed principles whilst lashing all others for doing the same thing. Total hypocrisy.

Anyway....offtopic?

You noticed that too?

Redleslie

Originally posted by Sand

Also youre attempting to drag the topic off post - now whilst Chill has done an appallingly good job at dragging this thread about 150 miles off topic, Im doing my best to try and ensure it is reasonably connected to the original topic.

I think the pic I posted pretty much sums up what the thread title, the Not In My Name slogan, is basically about. If you think it's off topic then perhaps a complaint to the mods is in order?

I mean for christ sake - South Africas emancipation? Surely so complex a topic deserves its own thread?!?

South Africa is about as relevant to the topic as the Russia v Chechnya thing or marching Stalinist bogeymen or Hitler, so why not? From day one, the whole discussion surrounding the war has been clouded with completely irrelevant rubbish or outright lies and a genuinely rational approach to the thing became impossible pretty quickly. That's just reflected here.

Ah at last - something on topic! So you agree that the British protests were not based on the principle that war crimes or wars without UN authorisation and oversight are wrong - only the fact Britain was involved brought them out? So why did they come out for Bush - hes not British? Why are they so concerned with the plight of the Palestinians or the Middle East if theyre only motivated by direct British involvement?

I didn't say that direct British involvement was the only reason people protested against the war. There are plenty of legal, pragmatic and moral reasons too and people like Shotamoose have already gone through them but you've conveniently ignored them, just as the rest of the armchair imperialists drowned out every single argument against the war with nonsense about Hitler and appeasers and nazis and Orwell because they seemed to be on a freaky self-righteous quasi religious power worship trip where awkward things like facts and truth and history had to be forgotten about or perverted for the sake of the "common good" or "democracy" or some other lame excuse.

Thanks - more confirmation that the anti-war movement pays only lip service to its claimed principles whilst lashing all others for doing the same thing. Total hypocrisy.

It's fairly amusing that while you're so preoccupied with ranting and accusing people of hypocrisy for failing to protest against Putin, you forget that you did not protest against his visit yourself. Did you? Did you protest at any G8 meetings he was at? Or did you even raise any objection at the time? If not then are you objectively supporting abuses in Chechnya? I wouldn't like to say you are, but that's what you're accusing others of doing. You sir, appear to the hypocrite round here. When you point a finger at someone, there's three more pointing back at you. Remember that.

mr_angry

Originally posted by chill
My opinion being different to yours doesn't diminish my credibility ... except in your intolerent and bippolar viewpoint.

Eh, no chill. I think you'll find I was referring to your outright hypocrasy, rather than my opinion just being different to your own. And your failure to discuss any of the real points I brought up just highlights the fact that you seem to be here to slag people off, rather than present any real argument.

Your sense of proportion and of comparable morality is appalling if that is how you judge 1945/6 and mass murdering terrorists in the 21st century.

Why? Did all of the Japanese people in those cities "have it coming to them"? Were all of them mass-murdering butchers? Or were some of them (nay, all of them) innocent civilians?

Let's compare it to the "mass-murdering terrorists in the 21st century". They killed about 4,000 people in the Twin Towers. 4,000 innocent civilians, who did not deserve to die, no matter what the circumstances. The Americans killed 340,000. 340,000 innocent civilians, who did not deserve to die, no matter what the circumstances. Now, don't lecture me on "regard for human life".

sovtek

Originally posted by chill
Thatcher did nothing but the US played a huge role behind the scenes bringing enormous pressure on the white racist minority.

Other than condemning the apartheid system while supplying aid to the same government in Angola, how did the US play a major role on the "white racist minority" government (forgetting that that same minority actually voted for the end of apartheid).

The spectre of civil war was a key result of US covert political and financial action.

Such as?

The Russian input was minor and overplayed by the SA media.

But both the US and SA governments took it seriously enough to go to war with Angola.