Whats with all the blind anti-Americanism?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by vorbis
hey man, you summed up my point of view perfectly.
The world is an imperfect place where most people and countries are out for their own self-interest. The US is no different to any other country in that respect.

Then you would accept that what you call blind anti Americanism is nothing more but the manifistation of self-interest: A reaction against policy which is not acting in our best interests, but in the intrests of a foreign power.

As for Afganistan, I'd say they are better off now. The Taliban regime was totally repressive. As for the continuing warlord problem, thats been on issue there for countless centuries.

That’s arguable, and we both would be speculating on that issue. The Taliban regime was totally repressive; however, in the vacuum of power that has replaced them would anarchy and de facto civil war (as one might find in most of the country) any better?

Originally posted by bonkey
At an international level, there is none of this. There is simply a big bully on the block who's current attitude is that what they say goes, full stop, end of story, thank you and goodnight. Great if the rules agree with them, tough crap if they dont...and woe betide anyone who would rather stand by the agreements they've signed for any reason, rather than siding with the police/bully.
jc

I don't agree with that part, countries are created by people, and they reflect the opinions of the people who run them.
If they are representative democracies, they by and large reflect the opinions of their citizens also.
The United States is a Very large sucessfull Economy, a testament to how well it is run by it's people.
It's only acting as the largest example of what is human nature.
If what you say there is true, I'll await the fall of france economically as She struggles with the consequenses she has to face, that Colin Powell has been talking of recently.
Regardless of what reasonable faith you or any of the rest of us have in most of the population as a whole,everybody is at some point going to break the rules somewhere along the line.
That doesn't make it right, but it wouldn't make sweeping condemnation of them right either.
mm

bonkey

Originally posted by Man
If what you say there is true, I'll await the fall of france economically as She struggles with the consequenses she has to face, that Colin Powell has been talking of recently.

If what I say is true, then the economic fall of France would happen if the US was economically strong enough to bully it into falling. It isnt, and ultimately bullying has its limits. Push far enough and people will push back.

Why do you think North Korea with its alleged intercontinental nuclear capability is a "regional problem" and Saddam who has allegedly some WMDs buried somewhere with no delivery mechanism is a threat to world peace?

Simple - because one can be walked over, and the other cant.

Regardless of what reasonable faith you or any of the rest of us have in most of the population as a whole,everybody is at some point going to break the rules somewhere along the line.
That doesn't make it right, but it wouldn't make sweeping condemnation of them right either.

So those lads who just put a librarian in a coma should be allowed to walk because hey - everyone breaks the rules at some point so we shouldnt really condemn them. Surely not.

Would you concede instead that there are some rules that we can accept that most of the population as a whole is not going to break, and that these are the rules which are central to society?

Then the whole thing just boils down to which rules you as an individual perceive should be "sacrosanct" in society. I don't see that as unreasonable grounds for levelling criticism or condemnation. I accept that not everyone will agree with everyone elses prioritisation, but I also accept the right of people to stand up for what they believe in.

I believe that this holds true at an international level as well. We see that nations have differing standards depending on what their underlying beliefs are. Certain things are held more sacrosanct in differing nations.

Would we be no different to the US if we were in their position? I believe we might be. We'd be better in some ways, and worse in others. Does that mean we shouldnt point out the faults in ourselves or in them? I dont think so.

If I criticise America, its blind anti-Americanism. If I criticise Ireland, what is it then? Blind unpatriotism? Why is it blind? Just because you dont share the same values as I do? Does that not make your criticism of me equally blind?

When this war started, I believed the US could win it, and am pleased to see that it has gone comparitively well. But I was opposed to it. Why? Because I wasnt just looing at the war itself.

My concern still remains that there is a complete lack of certainty that the situation can be improved, and I do not trust that the motives of those involved are sufficiently altruistic to enable them to create a workable solution that the local populace will accept. I do not trust that those involved have the staying power to remain involved if it all starts going pear-shaped. I hope it doesnt, or that if it does they will stay involved and see it through.

If they get it right, I will be amongst the first to stand up and applaud them for a job well done. If they see it through, regardless of the ups and downs, and show a willingness throughout to get it right, I will stand up and applaud them regadless of how flawed the solution is.

Until that time, however, I remain convinced that they are far more likely to walk away when it becomes suitable to them rather than when it becomes suitable to the Iraqis because - as we have more or less agreed - their underlying foreign policy is one of self-interest.

And that is where the problem lies. Are they willing to fundamentally shift their foreign policy on this issue and accept the responsibility that they are due, or will they simply remain true to their own ideals and accept the responsibility only as long as it is suitable?

I do not find the latter acceptable. That is my belief. Other people have their beliefs as to why this war is wrong.

You accept that there has been no shift in the underlying "greed" policy. So surely you are saying that I am right to level my criticism, based on my beliefs. If you dont share my beliefs, then obviously my conclusion isnt the right one for you either. But does that make my criticism blind? I dont think so. Having discussed them quite often, I am able to express my beliefs on the matter reasonablly well (I feel). Just because someone else may not be able to do so does not mean that their convictions are not seated in equally valid beliefs.

If those beliefs call for criticism or condemnation, then those people are right and have the right to do so.

jc

Originally posted by bonkey

Would we be no different to the US if we were in their position? I believe we might be. We'd be better in some ways, and worse in others. Does that mean we shouldnt point out the faults in ourselves or in them? I dont think so.
If I criticise America, its blind anti-Americanism. If I criticise Ireland, what is it then? Blind unpatriotism? Why is it blind? Just because you dont share the same values as I do? Does that not make your criticism of me equally blind?

Actually thats my point and where I'm coming from,to my mind it's good to critisise America on those actions that you disagree with, but it certainly is blind anti Americanism if you would universally condemn them as a whole rather than the actions individually.
I doubt anyway if thats your position, it's like it says in this forums very charter the spoken word contains a lot more information than the written and that can lead to misconceptions here which would probably take more time than either you or I have at any particular point to spend in front of our keyboards
I didn't actually accuse you of blind anything.
Rather I expressed the view that If I (or every one) were to be totally anti or pro, Friends/Enemies with any person/state/people based on just some of their actions, my world ( and probably yours ) would just grind to a halt.
You seem to be equating the actions of the lads beating up the librarian with the coalitions invasion of Iraq, that Guy was the innocent victim of a Brutal attack, who was Bullied by nasty people.
Theres not too many people now in Iraq who would argue that Sadam's regime shouldn't have been deposed in the way that it was, and plenty who would say that it was the only way.
That said I will agree with you that it is a terrible pity and an indictment of man kind that all brutal regimes aren't done away with such conviction, but rather in a lot of cases their survival or down fall depends on the greed or self interest of other parties.

You accept that there has been no shift in the underlying "greed" policy. So surely you are saying that I am right to level my criticism, based on my beliefs. If you dont share my beliefs, then obviously my conclusion isnt the right one for you either. But does that make my criticism blind? I dont think so. Having discussed them quite often, I am able to express my beliefs on the matter reasonablly well (I feel). Just because someone else may not be able to do so does not mean that their convictions are not seated in equally valid beliefs.

Oh I absolutely agree with the tone of your statement there.
From my side, I'll have lost some patience with the people of Iraq if they allow, once liberated from Sadam, a government to appear that equals or go's near it's brutality.

On an aside, by the way this has been, by far, the most interesting and wonderfull discussion I've participated in since entering this forum.
Most of the discussion throughout the forum is excelent and a tribute to the people that facilitate it
mm

vorbis

I might need to clarify the title a little bit. Its perfectly acceptable to critcise the US on specific actions. What I term blind anti-Americanism is blanket criticism. e.g. regarding the rioting immediately after the fall of Sadamme. There were numerous people saying the US had made Iraq a worse place, it was their fault, they should have prevented it etc. There was this inability to see that it was a good thing that Sadamme was gone and that this rioting would abate in a short period of time. Its the belief that everything the US does is wrong that I term anti-Americanism.

Éomer of Rohan

Its the belief that everything the US does is wrong that I term anti-Americanism.

No I disagree with this.

What happens when you and someone else disagree on whether a US action was right or wrong? Will you brand them anti-american? And if this continues to happen, ie you finding US international actions are 'for the good' and other people perceiving hidden motives, seeing that the US is simply self interested, will you then brand them anti-american?

The fact must be realised that there will be some people who will see every US international action hitherto as being in the wrong, as having some problem or whatever. So long as these people are not saying this out of hand, then they cannot and should not be branded anti-american (of course the classic reply I am expecting here is that every action the US have ever taken has not been in the wrong but that is ALL a matter of perspective).

I would define anti-americanism as the automatic assumption that EVERYTHING the US will do in the future (when there is no precedent of erratic or interfering etc behaviour) will be wrong in any circumstances.

bonkey

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
(of course the classic reply I am expecting here is that every action the US have ever taken has not been in the wrong but that is ALL a matter of perspective).

No, its not really.

If you maintain that every action that the US has ever taken is wrong, then you should also end up admitting that every action that every other nation has ever taken is also wrong - because by and large you will find it to be a subset of what the US have done. If you set your standards that high, no-one can meet them.

So now the question boils back to "why America?". Why are you choosing one nation for scathing damnation, without even admitting or acknowledging that everyone else is the same, in that their foreign actions are also all wrong.

Alternately, one could admit that not everything the US does is wrong. Its a much firmer stance to take because it can actually be defended. It gives you scope to say that "no, the coastguard/navy rescuing that foundering boat in international waters was not a bad thing", or whatever ridiculous case someone brings up as an example of how sweeping generalisations are excvessively simplistic to be defensible.

jc

Its the belief that everything the US does is wrong that I term anti-Americanism

Is there anybody on these boards that really believes this? I mean, i'm extremely suspicious of American Motives, and i'm against alot of what they've done in the past. However i'm willing to say that they have performed well at times in the past, and theres no reason why they won't do so in the future.

I don't believe in "blind anti-americanism". I believe in being opposed to the american administration & its policies. I believe in being against their invading another nation. But i'm not going to say that everything the US does is wrong, or subject to critism. The same goes for any other nation out there. All nation do bad, and they do good. Just as Saddams regime while awful, have performed some good acts. To say that they never have, just signifies that you live in a very slective black & white world. Thats not realism.

Originally posted by klaz
I don't believe in "blind anti-americanism". I believe in being opposed to the american administration & its policies. I believe in being against their invading another nation. But i'm not going to say that everything the US does is wrong, or subject to critism. The same goes for any other nation out there. All nation do bad, and they do good.

Yeah, opposition to all, is blind, but in this imperfect world, it's currently impossible to have everything done textbook,you can be sure someone has darker than dark interests that will sink that notion.
But when you say:

Just as Saddams regime while awful, have performed some good acts. To say that they never have, just signifies that you live in a very slective black & white world. Thats not realism.

I would believe that there are Scales and proportions that should be applied to a statement like that, and in all fairness,Iraq under Sadam Hussein would be one of the worst comparisons to use in terms of saying it did some good as well as bad.
mm

no, i agree to a certain amount. However since the invasion began, alot of people forget that saddams regime have done good in the past, just as many despot regimes have (stalins for example). The comparison can be made purely to illustrate that the blindness can go both ways, for people with that narrow black & white view..

Éomer of Rohan

Klaz, this is the only time I can EVER remember disagreeing with you about something LOL but...

Stalin's regime did Russia no good whatsoever. In fact prior to WWII, many millions were starving as a direct result of the industrialisation process - the NEP or 5 year plans or whatever you wish to call it. The Cheka under Stalin's buddy Felix Dzerzhinsky had the country jumping at it's own shadow and it was Stalin's disinformation to the Russian public that led to the unquestioning acceptance of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. During the war, Stalin and STAVKA were utterly ruthless in the evacuation of military materiel to the Urals when the Germans began their advance. The harsh truth was that Stalin and the 'Soviet' government did not supply their people with cold weather clothes or rations and many hundreds of thousands died in this way. At Stalingrad alone, 3 divisions worth of men were summararily executed by the NKVD for reasons such as 'questioning the Rodina' and so on. AFTER the war, Stalin made the purges of the pre war years look like a Sunday school picknick!! After all look at what happened to the commander of the 8th Army - the man who fought from Stalingrad right to the heart of Berlin, VI Chuikov.

However, just as you said, many despotic regimes do contribute something to their society before greed and rampant corruption take their toll.

Sparks

I've said it before in different places, but it seems appropriate to repeat it here:

What's been taken for anti-americanism is in fact disgust at, and loathing of, the actions of some (hopefully a small minority) of the US military, most of the US media, and just about all of the Bush administration.

I mean, seriously - the US is rather large geographically with many beautiful areas, it has a lot of people, a reasonably long history, it's produced a lot of things I personally adore in art, technology, culture, politics and other areas - so how can I be against that becaue I am disgusted at other, quite seperate things and can give reasons why those things disgust me? That's like saying I'm anti-food because I don't like the taste of most seafood!

Sparks

Eomar,
I think klaz was trying to point out that when Saddam initially came to power, he outlawed some practises that we were quite happy to condemn when the taliban were practising them - womens rights for example. There were none under Saddam's predecessor. Of course, point out this and you can be certain that there will be twenty people happily frothing at the mouth to call you a Saddam sympathiser.

Éomer of Rohan

*points Sparks towards the last sentence in his last post on this thread*

Sparks

Ah!
Well, at least I added some detail

Originally posted by Sparks
I mean, seriously - the US is rather large geographically with many beautiful areas, it has a lot of people, a reasonably long history, it's produced a lot of things I personally adore in art, technology, culture, politics and other areas - so how can I be against that becaue I am disgusted at other, quite seperate things and can give reasons why those things disgust me? That's like saying I'm anti-food because I don't like the taste of most seafood!

You know Sparks, even though, we've crossed swords, at times, what you've said there encapsulates exactly my approach to America and other topics.It's possible to have that approach and dissagree pro foundly on what one likes or dislikes or is disgusted by.
It would make for an excelent wording for an agreed communiqué at the end of a summit between Man and sparks:D
mm

bonkey

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
However, just as you said, many despotic regimes do contribute something to their society before greed and rampant corruption take their toll.

While I agree fully with this sentiment, I remember some Austrian politician ending up in an awful lot of international hot water for making vaguely similar comments a couple of years ago....

Why do people assume that you can only have one blanketed stance on an issue?

For example...even if I was pro-Gulf2 (or whatever its coined now), I would still criticise the US for some of its actions.

Similarly, despite being anti-Gulf2, I will readily admit that much of what the US did was done well, and that many of the results are fundamentally good ones.

Its just the overall balance of what I approve and disapprove of that tips the scale in the end.

And yet, as soon as you say "I'm anti-war", its all too readily assumed that you really meant "I'm pro-Saddam", or "I hate America", or some other ridiculous assumption.

We had a lot of that around here (on both sides to be honest - the pro-war got their basting with outrageous blanket assumptions as well) not too far back, and I'm glad normality is slowly returning to the board.

But I wonder...why do people have a disinclination to admit that they are not 100% opposed to things? Its never black and white. People seem to think that arguing that it is makes your point stronger. Personally, I think it just makes it more unrealistic...even if I am guilty of it myself on occasion

jc

Sparks

Man,
Good grief, are you trying to give me a stroke?

On the whole "saddam might have done some good once" topic, try this article, for the curious. I still think that direct democracy would be a better system for them than dictatorship though. Only hassle is that you need a serious secular education program, a decent healthcare system and a healthy economy to convince the majority not to go with a theocracy... and if you think that's easy, remember that even Leno pointed out that the US can't manage that in Florida

vorbis

as I said before, the view echoed by sparks is perfectly reasonable. My ciritcism was aimed at those people who view every US action as somehow bad, no matter the circumstances. I have no issue about people disagreeing about Bush's policies. I think that they're reasonable. You think differently. Thats what's called free speech.

Éomer of Rohan

My ciritcism was aimed at those people who view every US action as somehow bad, no matter the circumstances.

Have you actually found anyone to direct this at yet or can the moderators close the thread LOL? I think the point has been made well and often that no one is blindly anti-american (at the very least not on these boards and not that I have ever met) and those that people would define as anti-american are in such a position because they hold a radically different idea of what is right and wrong from yourself or they are politically aware with respect to the consequences in the past of US action and so on.

Sparks

Bush's policies. I think that they're reasonable. You think differently. Thats what's called free speech.

Please, please, please can I be pedantic?

vorbis

eomer I think you could be added to the list. Whilst browsing the forums, I found this rather hilarious viewpoint advocating inter-continental warfare to cripple US power. I think that fits my defintion of blind Anti-Americanism. I'd say you could almost pass for an Arab.

On this matter, see above - I do not necessarily have to like death in order to see that it may serve a greater purpose. For example if America was properly engaged in a war by every other nation on earth for example (sheerly hypothetical and somewhat unrealistic but give me the benefit of the doubt) and was defeated without things going 'nuclear' many people would die but the power of America would be removed - Canada would get territory, Mexico. states would become nations and so on - removing an aggressive, corrupting power and so benefitting the rest of humanity - so, as in a Democracy, doesn't the need of the many outweigh the need of the few?

Sparks

vorbis,

Whilst browsing the forums, I found this rather hilarious viewpoint advocating inter-continental warfare to cripple US power. I think that fits my defintion of blind Anti-Americanism.

Hmm. Don't think so. Please recall that the same debate pointed out that the reason was that some hold that opinion is that the US is now seen as a serious threat to world peace and stability.

On this matter, see above - I do not necessarily have to like death in order to see that it may serve a greater purpose.

If he hadn't been cremated, Ghandi would be spinning in his grave
Why is it that the people that espouse the view that killing is acceptable never seem to have been required to do the killing and see it's consequences?

For example if America was properly engaged in a war by every other nation on earth for example (sheerly hypothetical and somewhat unrealistic but give me the benefit of the doubt) and was defeated without things going 'nuclear' many people would die but the power of America would be removed - Canada would get territory, Mexico. states would become nations and so on - removing an aggressive, corrupting power and so benefitting the rest of humanity - so, as in a Democracy, doesn't the need of the many outweigh the need of the few?

Nope.

See, here's the thing. The rule of law means you can live a long, happy, productive and secure life. The alternative is the law of the jungle, and the problem with that is that no matter how big and strong you are, there's always someone around a corner that's bigger or stronger or faster or more skilled at breaking things, or just plain luckier. Just 'cos the US administration thinks war is an adaquate solution doesn't mean that that war's the correct answer.

Originally posted by Sparks
See, here's the thing. The rule of law means you can live a long, happy, productive and secure life. The alternative is the law of the jungle, and the problem with that is that no matter how big and strong you are, there's always someone around a corner that's bigger or stronger or faster or more skilled at breaking things, or just plain luckier. Just 'cos the US administration thinks war is an adaquate solution doesn't mean that that war's the correct answer.

Yeah, the rule of law, depends on who makes the laws though and from that what they are....,in cuba, it might have you shot for speaking out against Castro...
What disappoints me, is the almost complete lack of discussion at the moment either here or in the worlds media, on whats going on in Africa, it makes the whole Iraq thing pale into insignificance.

I heard an interview with the Zimbabwe high commissioner on the westminister hour on sunday night and clearly he went to the same school as comical Ali.
He stated that government meetings there were subject to the same restrictions as opposition meetings:rolleyes:
The interviewer talked to an opposition spokesman who gave his name and explained the absolutely undemocratic terrible abuses of law there.
The high commissioner was asked, if that opposition spokesperson was now safe as he had spoken out...,to which the reply was.." he is if he obeys the rule of law..." :rolleyes:
The interviewer was very sceptical and rightly so.

And then theres the whole Congo situation and the thousands dying, in that conflict.
Just to show how hung up we all are on Iraq ,a thread here on the subject only got 40 views and one reply
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=90934&highlight=congo
A little perspective on the whole thing would be the amount of interest if a hyperpower got involved, but it seems, the massive loss of life doesn't gain attention when small countries are killing each other.
One human life is exactly the same as the other, yet we won't get thousands onto our streets to urge our government to take action in the U.N on that issue.
Indeed we should have had plenty of opportunity when we were on the UNSC,but we as a people didn't demand it!
It does make me rather question our bona Fidé's
mm

Sparks

Man,

Yeah, the rule of law, depends on who makes the laws though and from that what they are....,in cuba, it might have you shot for speaking out against Castro...

In this case, we're talking about international law.

What disappoints me, is the almost complete lack of discussion at the moment either here or in the worlds media, on whats going on in Africa, it makes the whole Iraq thing pale into insignificance.

Agreed, it should be discussed - but it doesn't render Iraq insignificant by any measure, because the Iraq situation is not only ongoing, it was purposefully brought about by the largest democratic nation in the world acting in contravention of nearly every international law on the books, and without any assuarances that it would stop at Iraq.

One human life is exactly the same as the other, yet we won't get thousands onto our streets to urge our government to take action in the U.N on that issue.

Probably because the UN is already involved :rolleyes:

Indeed we should have had plenty of opportunity when we were on the UNSC,but we as a people didn't demand it!
It does make me rather question our bona Fidé's

Why? The UNSC and the UN's humanitarian agencies are already working in those areas.

Originally posted by Sparks
Man,
In this case, we're talking about international law.
Agreed, it should be discussed - but it doesn't render Iraq insignificant by any measure, because the Iraq situation is not only ongoing, it was purposefully brought about by the largest democratic nation in the world acting in contravention of nearly every international law on the books, and without any assuarances that it would stop at Iraq.
Probably because the UN is already involved :rolleyes:
Why? The UNSC and the UN's humanitarian agencies are already working in those areas.

But I am talking about organising military intervention.
It's one of the best cases where, the U.N isn't working

In this case, we're talking about international law.

which isn't leading to an awful lot more people in Africa than Iraq to live

a long, happy, productive and secure life.

as you put it thats my point , we should be as Zealous about them all, not just some.
But , like I was arguing above, it's people that are to blame and their selfishness.
mm

Sparks

Man,

But I am talking about organising military intervention.
It's one of the best cases where, the U.N isn't working

Huh? Am I behind the news cycle? Last I heard, there was a ceasefire in the congo and the UN were in there.
And the UN has a decent record in peacekeeping - it's just that it's hard to get a group of nations to agree to invade another nation.

which isn't leading to an awful lot more people in Africa than Iraq to live

Now we're into the WHO's area, not the UNSC's.

Originally posted by Sparks
Man,
Huh? Am I behind the news cycle? Last I heard, there was a ceasefire in the congo and the UN were in there.
And the UN has a decent record in peacekeeping - it's just that it's hard to get a group of nations to agree to invade another nation.

No you're not behind in the news, but if you read:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2957205.stm
You'll get a flavour of what I'm on about.
mm

Sparks

UN pledges support for peace process in northeast
UN to increase peacekeepers, shore up peace process in northeast
UN military observer killed in landmine accident

I'd say they were involved already. Unfortunatly, it's not all going well:

UNICEF deeply concerned by abduction of children as ceasefire breaks
And the UN is underfunded in the DRC

Of course you know that to get a military crowd in there, the UNSC would have to agree on it - and they're not quite talking too well at the moment. This seems to be the best they have done so far.

Éomer of Rohan

eomer I think you could be added to the list. Whilst browsing the forums, I found this rather hilarious viewpoint advocating inter-continental warfare to cripple US power. I think that fits my defintion of blind Anti-Americanism. I'd say you could almost pass for an Arab

Nice little piece of racism there too Vorbis. As for my viewpoint with regard to war on the US, I entirely stand by that until someone presents an alternative way to halting the power and the damage it does across the world.

And just while Sparks and Man are on the subject, I think it fair to point out to you that simply by giving ONE reason for a dislike of America (eg the flagrant disregard of the UN whilst still expecting every other nation to rigidly adhere to it - ie Iraq is not complying with 1441 so US invade but they think themselves too important to comply with UN rules ) I disprove your little tirade about how I am blindly anti-american.

Originally posted by Sparks
[BOf course you know that to get a military crowd in there, the UNSC would have to agree on it - and they're not quite talking too well at the moment. [/B]

I went down this tangent, as you had stated above that:

The rule of law means you can live a long, happy, productive and secure life.

, meaning in particular as you clarified , the rule of international law, that to date hasn't rung through in the Congo.
http://csf.colorado.edu/africa/death-rate-comparisons.html

The most accurate measure of deaths in the Congo War may be the mortality study as reported by CNN (June 2000). According to this estimate 1.7mil deaths are attributable to the war in five provinces of eastern Congo (with 20mil of DRC's total Y2000 population of 50mil) over the 22 months from Aug 98 to May 2000. The death rate over the entire Congo for the war since Aug98, therefore, is surely over 2mil. The flow of refugees across border and displaced persons within a country's borders is usually about twice the death rate for most SSA conflict zones.

Thats half the population of the Republic of Ireland in less than two years:eek: and doesn't take account of what happened since then, in a conflict that rarely if ever was on our tv screens,or bringing thousands onto our streets.
Thats a more tragic situation than Iraq, in terms of putting things in perspective. I don't make that statement , by the way as a challenge to you or anything,as it goes without saying, that we are probably by and large singing from the same hymn sheet regarding the imperfect world that we live in
mm

Sparks

Amen to that Man

Éomer of Rohan

I never thought I'd see the day when there was something I would agree with Man over LOL (w.r.t. the last point you made). Mind you, need I point out what nations were the prime arms dealers for these regions?

Sparks

I know Eomar, I'd allow myself to go into shock but I know what our health system is like

vorbis

keep proving the case, eomer. At some point, those Afican countries have to take responsibilities for their actions. US arms companies may have sold the governemnts involved weapons but it was entirely their own decision to use them. Stop making excuses for murderous tryrants. The US is not to blame for every bad thing in the world.

Éomer of Rohan

keep proving the case, eomer

Keep trolling Vorbis.
As to US companies and so on, if they weren't made and sold, they wouldn't be used; China, Russia, the US and Germany are the foremost arms exporters in the world and only the US refused to enter in to negotiations on the arms trade within the UN.
I wasn't making excuses for murderous tyrants either but the fact is that if the US didn't supply certain nations with arms, the amount of deaths in any war and the likelihood of war in the first place would be seriously decreased. In certain cases, the oppression of a people would be decreased as well. The arms trade is indefensible.

vorbis

I wasn't defending the arms trade. Selling weapons to countries engaged in such wars is not right. However, its unfair to shoulder the US with all the blame. You and I both know that if US companies didn't supply them, someone else would. As far as i can gather the ak47 is used widely in Afica. Thats obviously not an American weapon. But I don't blame the Russians for the aforementioned conflict. The countries involved are primarily responsible. They took the decision to engage in a needless and destructive war. Yet again the mere presence of US involvement seems to warp your perception of most situations.

Éomer of Rohan

Have you read nothing I said? Did I say the US are the only arms exporter in the world? Or even the single prime exporter?! NO! I said that the US engaged in this and that it is wrong and since you supposedly aren't defending the arms trade, then you obviously condemn this, right? Please make that clear. As for the presence of the US in a given circumstance warping my perception, that is tripe. I condemn many nations but whether you noticed it or not (given that you started the thread), this one solely concerns the US.

vorbis

oh please, Man was trying to put the Iraqi situation in context by supplying the Congo as an example. All human death is tragic but the point was that people care less when its only small nations involved. For some reason, you felt the need to apportion most of the responisibility of this conflict to the US. Generally your posts hold up the US for far greater criticism than other nations.

bonkey

Originally posted by vorbis
Generally your posts hold up the US for far greater criticism than other nations.

Could that possibly be because generally they are in threads discussing the US, and its actions, rather than "nations in general".

jc

QBall

Originally posted by Sparks
the Iraq situation is not only ongoing, it was purposefully brought about by the largest democratic nation in the world acting in contravention of nearly every international law on the books, and without any assuarances that it would stop at Iraq.

<PEDANTIC>India brought about the Iraq situation? Damn, I missed that one...</PEDANTIC>

Sorry, I had to say it.

Anyway, I'm gonna go back to lurking. If I make a point in this thread most of ye will think I'm trolling. :-)

-C

Sparks

QBall,
LOL. Yes, I should have said "preeminent" not "largest".

Vorbis,

All human death is tragic but the point was that people care less when its only small nations involved.

Yes, Kuwait showed that :rolleyes:

For some reason, you felt the need to apportion most of the responisibility of this conflict to the US.

The reason was that most of the responsibility for this conflict lies with the US/K.

Generally your posts hold up the US for far greater criticism than other nations.

Generally they do for two reasons:
1) The US has long held the belief that it is the leading example and proponent of democracy and the rule of law in the civilised world.
2) Other nations did not act as beligerently as the US did on this occasion. Other nations did not undermine international treaties that took centuries of effort to put in place. Other nations have not, in short, done as much to earn the criticism as the US has.

Éomer of Rohan

Give the man a pat on the back!

vorbis

oh dear
speaking purely hypothetically, suppose the US gave fighter planes to France which they subsequently used to attack Germany. Who is responsible for the conflict? If you say France then you're saying that Afican countries are somehow incapable of taking responsibility for their actions. The only external countries that can be blamed for the wars in Afica are the Europeanones which drew the maps which put tribes who hated each other in the same country.
Fact is though, they are responsible now for their own actions. By suggestign that the US is responsible for the war, is inferring that the black man doesn't really know what he's doing as such whoever gave them the arms to fight with should take responsibility.

Other nations did not undermine international treaties that took centuries of effort to put in place.

Thats just hysterical. Iraq broke more UN resolutions than the US ever has. Countries like China and Russia have also undermined international treaties to far greater effect throught their actions in Tibet and Checynia respectively. Again it seems the US are being judged on the basis of what they've done to prevent a perfect world. I prefer to judge them realistically. On that basis they're a long way from the worst case scenario of a hyperpower enslaving the world.

Éomer of Rohan

suppose the US gave fighter planes to France which they subsequently used to attack Germany. Who is responsible for the conflict?

You miss or ignore the point. The question is would France have gone to war without the assurance of victory as provided by the superior firepower of US weapons. If not, then the US is to blame for the conflict (and believe me this is the case in many African conflicts - do not even go there because I have so many stats on Angola and other nations that you will beg for mercy). If France would have gone to war, then the responsibility of war lies with France but the US is no less immoral than France; weapons of war are used for one purpose; to kill people. The industry in the USA such as Lockheed and so on make money from killing people therefore.

Iraq broke more UN resolutions than the US ever has. Countries like China and Russia have also undermined international treaties to far greater effect throught their actions in Tibet and Checynia respectively.

If you really want to go into International Agreements, look at the WTO and how many times the US has ignored the Uruguay Round. ABM, Kyoto, the UN Charter (violation of the UN charter is actually set into US foreign policy - they call it interventionism) and so on. Neither Russia nor China have broken as many agreements as the US have - and I would really like to see you back up the accusation that they have. As to resolutions that the US has defied, I request whoever posted that interesting list up about US/Israel violations a while back on a different post to do so again.

bonkey

Originally posted by vorbis
oh dear
speaking purely hypothetically, suppose the US gave fighter planes to France which they subsequently used to attack Germany. Who is responsible for the conflict?

Surely a more correct analagy would be : if an arms manufacturer supplied the French with their fighters, and the French then used these to attack Germany...would the arms manufacturer be acting responsibly if they continued to sell/give the French their deathtoys?

Its a double-edged sword...nations have a right to self-defense, and thus have a right to acquire miltiary hardware. Unfotunately, military hardware generally is useful for both defense and attack. SO supplying defensive capability (which is reasonable) involves also supplying offensive capability (not so reasonable, but unavoidable).

However, when the recipients start mis-using that hardware, then it should no longer be supplied until such times as they can show convincingly that they have mended their ways.

Now, some people will argue that if the US doesnt sell them these weapons (taking just the US as the case in point) then someone else will, so the US should still sell them...

Funnily...I dont see that logic being applied to WMDs - that because others look to gain NBC capability....why not just sell it to them? You know...if they're gonna get it anyway, why not just make some cash out of it?

jc

Originally posted by bonkey
Funnily...I dont see that logic being applied to WMDs - that because others look to gain NBC capability....why not just sell it to them? You know...if they're gonna get it anyway, why not just make some cash out of it?

jc

Probably, because chemical and biological weapons are potentially much more distructive, and don't need the manpower to opperate them than say a thousand guns, and therefore many times more dangerous if they get into the hands of terrorists than guns or conventional explosives.
of course that realisation is only coming home to the powers that be, in recent years as the threat becomes more plausible.

The whole , "the supplier is as much to blame" argument though, hits so many other areas as well,making it not a very strong notion to my mind.
If the shopkeeper down the street gives me cigerettes for instance ( I dont smoke ) should he share some of the blame if i ultimately get cancer and die from them? morally , possibly but legally probably No 'cause their sale is legal ( however justifyiably or otherwise) and I would have made the choice to take the risk.

Similarally, the people/governments in Africa are taking the choice of 'causing the deaths of millions under the noses of the rest of the world and that is very, very wrong, both on the count that they are making that choice in the first place and on the count that the rest of us didn't make or were powerless to make a suffecient fuss to stop it sooner.
I would , think that it's those that make the choices that are accountable in the main.
I have a gun licence for instance, and can legally go to my local dealer and buy a very lethal weapon.
I choose to use that gun within the terms of the license issued to me,but I could if I were mad, use it to go on a killing spree with people I disagree with, I don't, but if I did, I should be brought to answer for that, or at the very least , if I was a terrorist or a government, my ability to kill or threaten should be minimised somehow.
mm

bonkey

Originally posted by Man
Probably, because chemical and biological weapons are potentially much more distructive

An oft-debated point WMDs have more destructive potential "per attack", but their death-counts are insignificant when put beside virtually all "staples" of conventional warfare (firearms, landmines, etc. etc.) in the past century, or indeed in any major conflict we choose to picture.

Indeed, even in WW2, isnt it true that more people were killed by conventional "firebombing" techniques (like in Dresden) than in the nuclear attacks.

jc

Éomer of Rohan

Indeed, even in WW2, isnt it true that more people were killed by conventional "firebombing" techniques (like in Dresden) than in the nuclear attacks.

I don't actually think it is true. An estimated 140,000 to 225,000 people died in the nuclear bomb blasts - and that was the prototype. The Firebombing of Dresden and Hamburg killed (vague memory here) 80,000 people in total.

An oft-debated point WMDs have more destructive potential "per attack", but their death-counts are insignificant when put beside virtually all "staples" of conventional warfare (firearms, landmines, etc. etc.) in the past century, or indeed in any major conflict we choose to picture.

The only case of the use of Nuclear weapons being used in combat operations/war is that of WW2. There have been no other cases that would signify the destructive power of nukes. Considering that Nukes have become alot more powerful, the damage potentially created by them, is unknown.

But i agree conventional weapons have dealt far more death than WMD's. Consider that you shouldn't be considering the use of one sample of a weapon, but rather the use of it over an operation. So how many people did M16's or Ak-47s kill in Vietnam? or how many have certain techniques in regards to conventional weapons like carpet bombing have caused?

at the end of the day, I consider conventional weapons to be more dangerous. There is no stigma against them, as there is with WMD's. Hence the reason why nobody really rises any concern over the arsenals of the US, China, or most western nations.