|
|
| Everybody Wants to Rule The World, Well, At Least Kofi Does |
| 09.22.04 (5:07 am) |
UNITED NATIONS - President Bush, defending his decision to invade Iraq, urged a vast assembly of world leaders Tuesday to stand united with the country's struggling government and said the proper response to spreading violence "is not to retreat, it is to prevail."
The country's prime minister, Ayad Allawi, offered an upbeat assessment after Bush's speech to the General Assembly of the United Nations, saying, "We are winning, we are making progress in Iraq, we are defeating terrorists," even as insurgents claimed they had killed a second American hostage in two days.
Of the brutal slayings, Bush said, "We will not allow these thugs and terrorists to decide your fate and to decide our fate."
Yet in a sign of continuing world unease with the situation, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan — who last week called the war in Iraq illegal because it lacked Security Council approval — warned that the "rule of law" is at risk around the world.
Quick Question here for Kofi, but exactly when did we need your approval or the approval of the UN Security Council to declare war? When did we ever agree to give up our sovereignty and our right to protect our own nation in favor of a bunch of unelected foreign bureaucrats, many of whom were being bribed to vote against us?
We did not need nor should we ever need your approval or the approval of the UN Security Council to declare a war. The laws concerning how this nation goes to war is clearly spelled out in our Constitution, and we obeyed it to the letter.
So while I'm sure it makes you feel like your really something special to pontificate from on high, perhaps you should concern yourself with putting your own affairs in order before you get so self righteous. Perhaps you could take a look at your total failure to come up with even a notion as to how to deal with the situation in Somalia. You might even want to take a few minutes of your time figuring out how to deal with the corruption that runs rampant through your own organization. Perhaps you could spend some of your precious time figuring out how a vicious dictator like Hussien could manipulate and bribe so many UN officials to get whatever he needed.
You may have deluded yourself into thinking that your the leader of the world Kofi, but the truth is the guy working mall security has more real authority than you. So the next time you feel the need to mount your moral high horse and pass judgment on us, you might want to stop and consider the fact that without the United States military and economic might there wouldn't be a U.N., and you'd be back in Ghana herding goats instead of tooling around Manhattan in a limo.
|
|
|
| |
posted by: therealspartacus007
post date: 09.22.04 (5:20 am)
When did Saddam need Kofi's approval to kick inspectors out of his country? When did Iraq agree to give up its sovereignty to the US because it needs permission to develop WMD? Bush isn't the ruler of the world.
posted by: stepdad
post date: 09.22.04 (5:43 am)
Reply to: therealspartacus007
During the first Gulf War, after they invaded Kuwait. It was part of the agreement they signed for the cease fire.
posted by: therealspartacus007
post date: 09.22.04 (5:51 am)
Reply to: stepdad
And the US has never broken a treaty......
posted by: stepdad
post date: 09.22.04 (6:12 am)
Reply to: therealspartacus007
Despite what you'd apparently like to believe, we are not a country ruled by tyrannical despots that attacks other nations without provocation. That was Iraq under Hussien, not us. We are not a threat to the security of other nations, Iraq was. Your moral equivalency argument is ridiculous at best, there simply is no moral equivalency between our two nations, never has been, never will be.
So if you want to hate your country hey, that's your prerogative, but it's not going to be an easy sell here. Your going to need facts, not sweeping indictments and kooky conspiracy theories to back up your arguments. Your going to have to have facts.
Got any?
posted by: DrForbush
post date: 09.22.04 (10:00 am)
Reply to: therealspartacus007
If you view yourself as a "good guy" you don't need to follow the laws. That's why Reagan decided to break the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty, he thought he was a “good guy”. So, if the Arabs believe that they are the good guys then they don't have to follow the laws either. If the Israelis believe they are the "good guys" they can build a wall and prevent the "bad guys" from working in the good part of Israel. So, India and Pakistan can build nuclear weapons, as long as they view themselves as “good guys”.
So, just never think of yourself as a “bad guy” and the laws just don't matter.
posted by: therealspartacus007
post date: 09.22.04 (10:34 am)
Reply to: stepdad
We are not a tyrannical nation ruled by despots that usually attacks other nations without provocation. (exceptions include the Native American nations- actions now condemned by most US citizens)
We are not a threat to the security of most nations. (exceptions include despotic regimes like Old Iraq obviously, lol)
We are not morally equivalent with Iraq, we never have been, and we hopefully never will be, and if we ever are I don't see it coming anytime in the near future.
I don't hate my country.
I only use facts, and I made no sweeping indictments- I only criticized your blog suggesting that the US should not pay heed to the rule of law.
I don't recall any conspiracy theories being discussed.
Maybe you accidently click 'reply to: therealspartacus007' when you were trying to write to someone else?
posted by: therealspartacus007
post date: 09.22.04 (10:35 am)
Reply to: DrForbush
Exactly. The rule of law means that there are procedures the good guys have to follow in getting the bad guys. Whether you think Iraq justified an exception or not is irrelevant to the question of whether or not we should respect the rule of law generally, and that is what this blog is opposed to.
posted by: stepdad
post date: 09.23.04 (4:37 am)
Reply to: DrForbush
"If you view yourself as a "good guy" you don't need to follow the laws."
The laws are what we make them, and yes, we are the good guys. No other nation on earth is as responsible, dedicated or has a better track record of preserving peace, democracy, and overall fairness in it's dealings than the United States. None.
First your historical account is inaccurate. Reagan never "broke" the treaty in question, the United States and the USSR simply disagreed as to the interpretation of the treaty, that is all. The USSR felt the treaty should not allow space based and mobile anti ballistic missile systems. The USSR's major worry was that if the United States could succesfully develop such a system and render their own nuclear weapons less effective, then they would no longer be able to maintain the balance of power that existed at that time.
But if you check your history books even though National Security Advisor Robert Mcfarlane discussed a "broader" interpretation of the ABM treaty in October of 85', Reagan announced shortly thereafter that as a matter of policy we would still use the traditional, more restrictive interpretation of the treaty in regards to our anti ballistic missle development. Then in 1988 the Soviets broke the treaty themselves with the Krasnoyarsk radar violation. As a result the United States declared the Soviets in material breach of the treaty.
"So, if the Arabs believe that they are the good guys then they don't have to follow the laws either. "
Our military has never specifically targeted civilians. Ever. Your argument is ridiculous and insulting, and shows a total ignorance of not only the honor and integrity with which our military forces conduct themselves as well as a complete lack of understanding concerning the enemy we currently face. There is a very big difference between intentionally trying to kill women and children, non-combatants, in order to make a political statement and a soldier honorably serving his country on the field of battle.
There is no moral equivallancy between the two, none.
"If the Israelis believe they are the "good guys" they can build a wall and prevent the "bad guys" from working in the good part of Israel. "
Again we find your facts are wrong, and your argument poorly researched. The wall in question doesn't prevent entry and it doesn't prevent Palestinians from entering or working in Isreal daily. It is certainly a big inconvience to those Palestinians who do, but considering the fact that it has also prevent a lot of innocent Isreali citizens, again women and children, from being killed by crazed nutcases who hate jews.
But then I guess your much vaunted "compassion" and "understanding" doesn't extend to them. Funny how you seem to have all this sympathy for these murdering scumbags and none to spare for their actual victims.
But hey, just think of yourself as a "good guy", even though it is apparent your opinions are based on revisionist history instead of the truth. Just forget all about all those people who are getting slaughtered by religious fanatics who hate anyone who is different from themselves and try and act like these scumbags are something other than what they are just so you can have one more thing to blame on America.
That is the "progressive" thing to do, after all.
posted by: stepdad
post date: 09.23.04 (4:47 am)
Reply to: therealspartacus007
"We are not a threat to the security of most nations. "
A statement so throughouly ignorant it almost defies belief. Ok, name a single nation that the United States has ever invaded where we did not turn control of that nation back over to it's indigineous population. Just one.
You won't find one. Now, name any other major nation on this earth, any European nation, any Asian nation, that can say the same thing. Just one.
Again, you won't find one.
"I don't hate my country."
Then stop blaming it for all the worlds ills. Contrary to what you and Doc apparently believe, we really are the good guys, always have been. No other nation on earth has ever been the force for good that the United States has been, no other nation can even come close.
"I only use facts"
Sparty, neither you nor Doc has used one yet. What you've used is revisionist history and DNC propoganda, not historical fact.
"I only criticized your blog suggesting that the US should not pay heed to the rule of law."
The US should pay heed to our own laws, as those are the laws that we decided should govern us. We should not pay heed to a corrupt organization that wishes to criticize us for protecting the well being of our own citizenry simply because they are upset that they will no longer be making billions by violating their own laws.
That is just, well, idiotic.
posted by: therealspartacus007
post date: 09.23.04 (7:06 am)
Reply to: stepdad
"A statement so throughouly ignorant it almost defies belief. Ok, name a single nation that the United States has ever invaded where we did not turn control of that nation back over to it's indigineous population. Just one."
The Sandwich Islands. Minnesota. Kansas. The Dakotas. Oklahoma. Texas. New Mexico. Arizona. California. Nevada. Utah. Idaho. Colorado. Wyoming. Montana. Oregon. American Samoa.
"You won't find one. Now, name any other major nation on this earth, any European nation, any Asian nation, that can say the same thing. Just one."
Switzerland. Denmark. Afghanistan. Turkmenistan. Latvia. Ukraine. North Korea. South Korea. Tawaiin. Sri Lanka. The Philippines. Finland.
"Again, you won't find one."
"Then stop blaming it for all the worlds ills. Contrary to what you and Doc apparently believe, we really are the good guys, always have been. No other nation on earth has ever been the force for good that the United States has been, no other nation can even come close."
I agree. I have consistantly advocated that the United States of America is the best, most free, most good and noble nation in the history of human civilization. But that doesn't mean we're perfect, and that doesn't mean we're somehow above reproach. As Ben Franklin said, (paraphrasing) "The best way to be patriotic is not to worship your country, but to try and change it."
"Sparty, neither you nor Doc has used one yet. What you've used is revisionist history and DNC propoganda, not historical fact."
Huh, thats interesting. Everything I've written so far is pretty well documented.
Just to fact-check your blog, Annan was never a goat herder in Ghana, and Ghana's liberation from the British Empire was not thanks to "the United States military and economic might."
"The US should pay heed to our own laws, as those are the laws that we decided should govern us. We should not pay heed to a corrupt organization that wishes to criticize us for protecting the well being of our own citizenry simply because they are upset that they will no longer be making billions by violating their own laws.
That is just, well, idiotic."
The United Nations did not condemn the United States for defending itself. It condemned the United States's invasion of Iraq because the legal procedure for dealing with Hussein's possible violation of UN resolutions did not include a land invasion at the time. That's like saying that a judge is evil because he wouldn't let you hang a theif until after the investigation, arrest and trial.
And since we're worried about facts instead of propaganda, could you please provide some evidence (not conjecture from the RNC) that the UN is a corrupt organization only in it for the money?
posted by: therealspartacus007
post date: 09.23.04 (7:08 am)
Reply to: stepdad
You're missing the entire point of DrForBush's comment. He never said anything about the US and terrorists being moral equals. He said that the legal justification of the US invasion of Iraq is on the same flawed argument that the PLO gives to bomb in Israel.
And since when is criticizing the US "blaming America first?????????????"
posted by: DrForbush
post date: 09.23.04 (8:18 am)
Reply to: stepdad
You wrote:
"No other nation on earth is as responsible, dedicated or has a better track record of preserving peace, democracy, and overall fairness in it's dealings than the United States. None."
Of course until Bush and his cohorts began to break international laws by invading Iraq. Also, the UN did not support this invasion even though you like to say that the invasion was in response to enforcing a UN resolution. Funny how the US doesn't want to support the UN until they find a convenient reason to do so. Kofi Annan has said that he believed the invasion was a violation of international law. So, either the US follows international law, or the system of laws will fall apart. But if you agree with the Bush administration the agenda is for the international laws to fall apart.
But, then again you continue to disrespect the UN Secretary General. Of course you are upset with the “Bush Haters” who disrespect our fearless leader. You talk about nuanced responses of John Kerry, but you spout nuanced interpretation of the ABM treaty, and Middle East policy. Obviously you have your own agenda and you like to interpret the law in your own favor. You should either consider the details fairly or decide that you are going to universally ignore the details, but in order to have credibility you need to do one or the other.
posted by: DrForbush
post date: 09.23.04 (8:25 am)
Reply to: stepdad
You wrote:
"Our military has never specifically targeted civilians. Ever."
And the fire bombing of Dresden was only aimed at military sites. And the attack on Hiroshima was only aimed at military sites? And the attack on Nagasaki was only aimed at military sites?
Well, there are at least three cases where you are wrong.
posted by: DrForbush
post date: 09.23.04 (8:32 am)
Reply to: stepdad
You wrote:
"Just forget all about all those people who are getting slaughtered by religious fanatics who hate anyone who is different from themselves"
Look, my ancestors wound up in this country because of religous zelots capturing solders and selling them as slaves in this country. We are fighting religious zelots in the Middle East and in Israel. And, unfortunately we have a religious zelot in the White House fighting a crusade in the Middle East. The way to make peace isn't to fight more wars. William of Orange was finally defeated, but it didn't make what he did right.
posted by: stepdad
post date: 09.23.04 (10:54 am)
Reply to: DrForbush
No, they didn't specifically target civilians, though they did incur high civilian casualty rates in collateral damage. However you will also find that in each instance the action in question was considered carefully hastened the end of the war, thus lowering causualty figures both civilian and military in the long run.
And none of these instances, I might add, can even be compared to a nutcase strapping a bomb to his chest and purposefully killing a lot of innocent women and children so that he can cleanse the world of infidels and despoilers.
Your analogy is completely off base and ridiculous.
posted by: DrForbush
post date: 09.23.04 (10:59 am)
Reply to: stepdad
Look who's the revisionist historian.
posted by: DrForbush
post date: 09.23.04 (11:05 am)
Reply to: stepdad
You wrote:
"No, they didn't specifically target civilians,"
So, nuclear weapons are OK, because you don't have to aim them. So, if a terrorist blows up Washington with a nuclear weapon it's OK because they didn't target civilians. They would be aiming at the politicians, not the public. Or, 9/11 wasn't bad, because they were aiming at the finacial district, not the people.
This is one of the stupidist things you have ever written!
posted by: stepdad
post date: 09.23.04 (11:13 am)
Reply to: DrForbush
"Look, my ancestors wound up in this country because of religous zelots capturing solders and selling them as slaves in this country. We are fighting religious zelots in the Middle East and in Israel. And, unfortunately we have a religious zelot in the White House fighting a crusade in the Middle East. The way to make peace isn't to fight more wars. William of Orange was finally defeated, but it didn't make what he did right."
Setting aside from your not so subtle mischaracterization of our President of a religious zealot, again you completely miss the point.
We can't have peace with these people. Period. What you totally fail to understand is that these people want us all dead. We are unbelievers, infidels, and a scourge on the world. They want all of us dead. All Christians, all Jews, all atheists.. all of us.
We have only two options here. We either let them kill all of us or we do something to put a stop to it. The "peace" you so desperately speak of is impossible, just as it is impossible for the NAACP to make "peace" with the KKK. You cannot reason with that kind of hatred, and you can't make it go away just by allowing them to continue to murder innocent people and pretend it doesn't matter.
That is the total failure of your philosophy. You want peace. That's great, I applaud you for that. But they don't and they never will, and it doesn't matter how nice you are to them or how understanding you try to be, our enemies will stop at nothing until we are all dead.
If you could understand that then perhaps you might begin to realize the situation were in. Until then I'm afraid your head is buried firmly in the sand and so far nothing, no amount of fact or reason has been able to dislodge it.
Your arguments are illogical because you completely and totally fail to realize the mindset of the people your dealing with. You think you can reason with them. You think if you just treat them a little better or get them all into some sort of encounter group to address their grievances then everything will be ok and they'll be happy and like us all.
You should have learned a lesson from your ancestors in this regard, there are some people in the world that just hate. They can't be reasoned with. They regarded everyone who didn't think like them or look like them or worship like them as sub-human and therefore unworthy of even basic human dignity.
That is the mindset we are dealing with here, and why your laudable goal of peace is simply impossible to achieve. These people will think nothing of exploiting your desire for peace in order to kill a few thousand more of the infidels they hate so much, yourself included.
I just don’t think we should allow thousands more innocent lives to be sacrificed just because we lack the intestinal fortitude to do what is necessary to put an end to this nonsense. The truly moral thing to do in this case is also the hard thing to do, we must face our enemies head on and do whatever is necessary to prevent them from slaughtering more innocent people. It’s not easy, and lives are going to be lost in the effort. But to shirk that responsibility is unconscionable.
Were going to have to get our hands dirty here, we simply have no choice in the matter. Sadly the world just isn’t the pristine and rosy place we’d like it to be, and no amount of wishful thinking or rose colored glasses will change that.
posted by: DrForbush
post date: 09.23.04 (11:23 am)
Reply to: stepdad
So, you believe that the people in the middle east are somehow different than us? What makes them different?
posted by: stepdad
post date: 09.23.04 (11:44 am)
Reply to: DrForbush
"So, nuclear weapons are OK, because you don't have to aim them. "
Try responding to the arguments I actually make, instead of mischaracterizing them and attempting to obfuscate a reply simply because you lack the facts to back up your original assertions.
"They would be aiming at the politicians, not the public. Or, 9/11 wasn't bad, because they were aiming at the finacial district, not the people. "
Your total lack of understanding about the history of our nation is astounding, to say the least. The United States did drop two nuclear weapons on Japan during WWII.
But one cannot even begin to compare the act of dropping a nuclear weapon on another nation with whom we were at war and an act of terrorism.
Again your moral equivalency argument is simply ridiculous. When we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki it was done so to convince the Japanese to surrender.
If we hadn't, then we would have forced to adopt the "island hopping" strategy and eventually and eventually an invasion of the Japanese mainland. The action ultimately was designed to save lives, both American and Japanese.
If we had continued to construct nuclear weapons and continued to drop them on Japan until we annihilated their entire population, then sent in roving bands to hunt down any Japanese refugees as well as executing all of the Japanese we could find in this and every other nation on earth you might begin to have an argument for moral equivalency.
But we never did so, and as a nation we would find such an action abhorrent. But that is the difference between us and them, a difference that you cannot see because you are blinded by your ideology. You are so eager to blame America for anything, anything at all, that you never stop to think. That is your downfall Doc, and why your arguments are so easily defeated.
The terrorist attacks committed on the United States and Israel never had any goal in mind other than killing infidels. The stated goal of these terrorist is to annihilate all of us. All Jews, all Christians, all atheists, even all the other Muslims that do not believe exactly what they believe.
That is where your moral equivalency argument fails and WILL ALWAYS fail, and why it is such a ridiculous argument to even attempt to make.
There is no action the United States has ever taken that can even compare, we have never as a nation instituted a policy of genocide against anyone. Even in those times when we have had to fight, and yes even kill, we have always done so with certain amount of reluctance and always with a greater good in mind.
You cannot compare that in any way shape or form to groups of religious zealots that are trying to kill anyone and everyone that doesn't look, think, and act just the way they do. It is a nonsensical argument. There is no moral equivalency, period.
posted by: stepdad
post date: 09.23.04 (11:47 am)
Reply to: DrForbush
Again Doc you simply fail to read the arguments put forth. I stated that this is the mindset of the TERRORISTS whom we face, not the mindset of everyone in the middle east. My apologies for the use of capitalization but since you seem to fail to read the original argument even well enough to catch this very simple point I felt it necessary to make certain you didn't miss this simple point yet again.
The people of the middle east are not our enemy, nor are mulism or islam. Our enemy are radical islamofacist groups who will stop at nothing to kill all of us.
It's just that simple.
posted by: DrForbush
post date: 09.23.04 (11:48 am)
You wrote:
" But one cannot even begin to compare the act of dropping a nuclear weapon on another nation with whom we were at war and an act of terrorism."
Don't you remember, Bush told us that we are at war. So, I don't understand your argument at all. Is it because the enemy might use our statagy against us that it doesn't count? For some reason you see the US as diferent from the other countries in the world. So, we are back to the beginning argument. Why does the US think it is above the law?
posted by: DrForbush
post date: 09.23.04 (11:50 am)
" Again your moral equivalency argument is simply ridiculous. When we dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki it was done so to convince the Japanese to surrender. "
Your arguments continue to only work with the US in the driver's seat. What if China wanted to stop us? Or, more likely North Korea? Couldn't they say the same thing, "We just wanted them to surender."
posted by: DrForbush
post date: 09.23.04 (11:53 am)
You wrote:
"You are so eager to blame America for anything, anything at all, that you never stop to think. That is your downfall Doc, and why your arguments are so easily defeated.
"
Actually, I am not blaming America for anything. Maybe I am blaming some governments for their faults and shortsightedness, but I am not blaming America.
posted by: DrForbush
post date: 09.23.04 (11:58 am)
You wrote:
"The action ultimately was designed to save lives, both American and Japanese."
Again, anyone with a nuclear weapon can make this argument. North Korea, China even Israel. Israel can say we just wnt to clean the West Bank. It will prevent terrorists from bombing our cities and save lives. Would you agree with this action? I assume not, but you do continue to surprise me with your logic.
posted by: DrForbush
post date: 09.23.04 (12:09 pm)
You wrote:
" Try responding to the arguments I actually make, instead of mischaracterizing them and attempting to obfuscate a reply simply because you lack the facts to back up your original assertions."
OK, getting back to the assertion that you made: The US has never used force against civilian targets. So, you are arguing that the cities of Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagisaki were not civilian targets because bombing them and killing civilians hurried the end of the war.
And, if the terrorists say that killing civilians with a few WMDs will hasten the end of the Jihad this is using moral equivilance and therefore unfair to assert. Right?
Obviously this argument only works if you assume that one side is right and the other side is wrong. And, you believe that the US is right because they have never targeted civilians. But, they did to end WWII. So, your argument is circular.
What you are saying is: We are right, therefore we are right! This works with school children, but not in the court of world opinion where over 100 million muslims think that the terrorists are right. And these are just the hard core muslims. If you consider the rest of the muslims that can be swayed especially if we use force and kill inocents even if it's collateral we can have a large number of people against us who think that they are right.
Remember, the US population is only 300 Million.
posted by: stepdad
post date: 09.23.04 (12:13 pm)
Reply to: DrForbush
"OK, getting back to the assertion that you made: The US has never used force against civilian targets."
Try rereading that argument again, the one I actually made, and get back to me. If your not going to read what is written and only respond to arguments you make up yourself, whats the point of my continuing to respond?
posted by: DrForbush
post date: 09.23.04 (12:19 pm)
Is there something special about your wording:
"Our military has never specifically targeted civilians. Ever. "
I don't think that your wording changes my argument.
posted by: DrForbush
post date: 09.23.04 (12:21 pm)
You wrote:
"I stated that this is the mindset of the TERRORISTS whom we face, not the mindset of everyone in the middle east."
And, answer me what makes these people different?
posted by: stepdad
post date: 09.23.04 (12:30 pm)
Reply to: DrForbush
Then you need to read it again and again until you realize that it does I'm afraid. There is a big difference between "never using force against civilian targets" and "specifically targeting civilians". If you can't even grasp the difference in those two statements how could you ever possibly understand anything else I might have to say on the subject?
posted by: stepdad
post date: 09.23.04 (12:32 pm)
Reply to: DrForbush
What makes a person who joins the KKK hate minorities enough to do so? What makes a White Supremacist “different”? You can’t justify their hatred any more than you can justify the hatred of an Islamofacist terrorist, nor can you ever truly understand it. All you can do with it is deal with it.
Now, I’m certain you would never suggest a policy of appeasement towards the KKK. You would never advocate that we just start giving into the demands made by White Supremacy organizations just so they would maybe someday learn not to hate us.
So if you realize it won’t work for them, why the huge mental leap to realize that this same ridiculous policy of appeasement won’t work for Osama or any of the rest of the Islamofacist crowd either?
posted by: DrForbush
post date: 09.23.04 (12:49 pm)
You wrote:
"Now, I’m certain you would never suggest a policy of appeasement towards the KKK."
Do we have the same number of KKK members as we did, say 50 years ago? Is the south still a haven for the White Supremists? What happened in the South that made support for the KKK go down?
posted by: DrForbush
post date: 09.23.04 (12:55 pm)
Reply to: stepdad
So, dropping a nuclear weapon on a city is not specifically targeting civilians? Did the US warn the civilians? Did the US drop the bomb away from a populated area where Japanese military observers could witness the damage? How is dropping a nuclear weapon on a city "Not specifically targeting civilians?"
If you think that it isn't, then you have been brainwashed into thinking that. Civilians died in these bombings, and other methods could have demonstrated the power of the weapons without targeting civilians.
posted by: RedneckBob
post date: 09.23.04 (3:13 pm)
Reply to: DrForbush
How is dropping a nuclear weapon on a city "Not specifically targeting civilians?"
Hiroshima was a major supply and logistics bas for the Japanese Military, and Nagasaki was the manufacturing port for a large number of Japanese warships. By this account, both were valid military targets. Truman in particular referred to Hiroshima as a military base and did not want to target women and children.
Were they warned? No. Not unless you want the planes attacked. Were civilians killed? Yes. Was that the objective? No. The objective was to demonstrate overwhelming force against military targets in order to force the Japanese to surrender.
Could it have been handled differently? Possibly. That is debated to the present day. Was it necessary? The leadership of the time thought so. That again is debated to this day. Was it effective? Obviously. Was it regretable? Yes.
Is it equivalent to flying 4 civilian jet-liners full of people into obviously civilian targets, suicide bombing targets such as pizza parlors and discos, or beheading civilians working to restore Iraq? Absolutely not.
posted by: stepdad
post date: 09.24.04 (8:13 am)
Reply to: DrForbush
Check your history books Doc, it wasn't a policy of appeasement such as you suggest for dealing with terrorists.
It was a zealous effort by the FBI and the federal government who went after not only members of the KKK, but those who consipired with them and supported them.
The government didn't go to the KKK and the people in the south and hold encounter groups, there was no kissy huggy nonsense that broke the cycle of violence against blacks. They cracked the whip, hard.
So if anything Doc I'm afraid your point supports my argument, not yours.
posted by: DrForbush
post date: 09.24.04 (8:42 am)
Reply to: stepdad
I don't remember reading about the National Guard surrounding churches were the KKK was holed up. I don't remember the government imposing martial law on the south while they take care of the KKK. I'm sorry, but the FBI effort makes a lot more sense than what George W Bush is doing in the Middle East today.
I don't believe I ever said that we should appease the terrorists. I think that must be you assumption based on your prejudice of liberals (even though I am not a liberal).
posted by: stepdad
post date: 09.24.04 (11:21 am)
Reply to: DrForbush
No, because such a level of force wasn't necessary or appropriate, considering the situation.
You know Doc, for a guy who is so good at "nuancing" when it suits your needs you can be awfully obtuse when the mood hits.
You and I both know that the KKK's decline had nothing to do with appeasement, and it certainly had nothing to do with being nicer to bigots.
It came about as a result of direct intervention and a concerted campaign by our government to root it out and destroy it.
The means by which they did this was perhaps different than the means by which we are confronting foriegn terrorists, but considering the disparity in the two situations, that one took place conus and the other is taking place overseas, for example, this just makes sense.
The government also went after those organizations that supported and aided the KKK, not just directing it's efforts only at known KKK members.
As a result their efforts worked. We are currently employing a similar strategy towards terrorism, and we have a historical model that shows the approach is effective.
So, your contention apparenlty is if we would have just brought all these KKK members together and been nicer to them, maybe give them some concessions, they would have given up their hate?
It's ridiculous Doc, and you know it. You just don't wish to admit it because you realize that the same thing applies to the Islamofacisits terrorists you've been tripping all over yourself to be an apologist for.
Sorry Doc, but I'm afraid history, as usual, doesn't support your argument. Neither do common sense or logic, but then I'm sure you'll just try to nuance your way out again rather than admitting your wrong.
Ciao.
posted by: DrForbush
post date: 09.24.04 (11:57 am)
Reply to: stepdad
Actually its called escalation. If you use force then the enemy responds with more force. Each cycle the violence grows. It didn't grow in the south with the KKK because they were not challenged until the civil rights marches. Of course you left that part of your history out. When the KKK killed peaceful marchers and the media broadcast the news nationally the pressure became to great for the social support of the Klan.
But, you will continue to read the history the way you choose.
posted by: whymrhymer
post date: 09.25.04 (7:47 am)
Reply to: stepdad
Not that you need help but, just for the record, I almost totally agree with your BASIC argument and rationale.
Personally, I'm in the middle of the extremes: I think we could have approached the Iraq situation more 'surgically,' i.e., gotten rid of the threat without getting involved in restructuring the political system. To my mind, if there is an error in our foreign policy it is: we're overstepping our bounds by trying to civilize the "barbarians" -- that shouldn't be our job. Defense of the United States is the Constitutional mandate -- not healing the world's ills. What we're doing is a good thing , a noble undertaking, but very costly -- IMHO needlessly costly (cost = lives + money + image).
posted by: newbie
post date: 09.29.04 (8:11 pm)
US preserving democracy around the globe :) Hahahaha how about Noriega? The US does whats in the US's interests.
The British empire also felt the need to "help" the poor "savages" into "civilization". AKA profit.
Same reason the US meddles in other Nation's affairs. When it suits your purpose you call it a "responsibility". As long as it suits US interests. Lets see what about:
Tibet? No that would anger emerging markets in China. Can't risk the profit! Plus, no Oil in Tibet!
Taiwan? Same thing!
Myanmar (Burma)? Nothing in it for the US ... why bother?
Saudi Arabia? Ruled by dictators ( AKA Royalty ) Hey they give us all the oil! Can't touch that!
Funny how your armies march over into other soverign nations when there is some cash at stake and installs coke dealing dictators like Noriega when that happens. What happened to him? Quit listening to the US. Oh! Time to fight for "Freedom" again!
Want to solve your terrorism problem? Stay home! Or fight with the UN not unilaterally remove every despot that either pisses you off or costs you money.
The US does not get to decide what everyone else can or can not do by itself. If it keeps on this path it will face the same fate as every other empire that tried to take over the world.
Myanmar (?
posted by: RedneckBob
post date: 09.30.04 (12:34 am)
Reply to: newbie
It would be silly to refute the idea that US interventions will (usually) be in our own self interest. As I have stated on this page before, everyone acts in their self-interest, whether individuals or nations. So the fact that there is self-interest on the US's part for the intervention in Iraq is not contested, and frankly, moot. (note: Not -mute-... moot. Pet Peeve.)
"Tibet? No that would anger emerging markets in China. Can't risk the profit! Plus, no Oil in Tibet!"
- Tibet is being dealt with through diplomatic channels. You may wish to review this page http://www.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rpt/20699.htm
describing US action on Tibet during the Bush administration. There is no justification at this point to go to war over Tibet, but we are talking to China about the issue on a continuing basis.
Taiwan: stated American policy is that we will "help her defend herself", but there does not appear to be any immediate interest in mucking with the status quo. Again, there is no apparent threat to the US in China-Taiwan relations that places it as a higher priority than Islamic Terrorism.
Burma: President Bush, in this Exec. Order http://www.burmaproject.org/070003bush_letter_eo_sanc.html
And by signing legislation to expand sanctions on Burma http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/breaking_news/6402601.htm?1c is, again, engaged in diplomatic maneuvers to try to affect the situation there.
These are all being handled by diplomacy. Assuming the point of your argument is that we can't go kicking in the door of every country that does something that we don't like, I would think this would meet with your approval.
This article http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/analysis/2002/1127saudi.htm discusses the sensitive situation of diplomacy with Saudi Arabia, and how it must be handled carefully. It is important to realize that weakening the current Saudi regime is not in our interest, and thus the situation has to be handled with care.
As for Noriega, he was apparently orignally a US ally, but then began doing things that ticked us off. So we removed him. Self interest? Yeah, I guess.
Now we get to your point: " Want to solve your terrorism problem? Stay home! Or fight with the UN not unilaterally remove every despot that either pisses you off or costs you money."
Unilateraly remove? Sounds like the old "You went in there alone" speech we get from Kerry. Let me give you the list.
"The size and capabilities of the Coalition forces involved in operations in Iraq has been a subject of much debate, confusion, and at times exageration. As of August 5, 2004, there were 30 non-U.S. military forces contributing to the ongoing stability operations throughout Iraq. These countries were Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Rep, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Thailand, United Kingdom, and Ukraine. The MNF-I website incorrectly included Honduras in the list; that country's troops returned in late May. The MNF-I website also includes New Zealand, although the New Zealand government has claimed that it had not joined the US-led force but that the deployment had been at the request of the United Nations.
The Kingdom of Tonga did, however, deploy 45 Royal Marines in early July to Iraq. New Zealand redeployed its contingent of 61 troops in late-September 2004. As a result, there are 30 countries participating in the coalition.
On September 6, Armenia announced that it would deploy 50 troops to Iraq, though it was unclear when the troops would be deployed to Iraq; until such time, it is not being included in the count of countries taking part in the coalition.
Countries which had troops in Iraq at one point but have pulled out since: Nicaragua (Feb. 2004); Spain (late-Apr. 2004); Dominican Republic (early-May 2004); Honduras (late-May 2004); Philippines (~Jul. 19, 2004); and New Zealand (late Sep. 04). " (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm)
30 countries participating. Not exactly going it alone. Just because France, Germany, and Russia chose not to back us doesn't mean we're in there all by ourselves. Regardless, in most UN actions we still provide the bulk of the troops, so nothing new here. Also, we didn't remove Sadaam (simply) because he "pissed us off" or "cost us money". We removed him because he was a supporter of terrorism, and therefore a threat. Establishing a free, democratic country in the Arab region is a step to hopefully stabilizing the region and quieting terrorism. It was a place to start. The fact that we removed a murderous tyrant who sought to possess WMD was a bonus.
And by the way, September 11 2001 happened when we were "staying home" as you put it. Up until that point, Islamic Terrorism was being handled mostly by law enforcement, although I think Bush was leaning to alter that approach. The reason we are in Afghanistan and Iraq is because we were attacked. Now, we are on the offensive, because obviously the "stay home" approach didn't work.
" The US does not get to decide what everyone else can or can not do by itself."
Nor do we try to.
" If it keeps on this path it will face the same fate as every other empire that tried to take over the world. "
I fail to see any instance in which the US is trying to build an empire or take over the world. The actions in Iraq and Afghanistan are based in self-defense. And if that pisses the Europeans off, I guess that's just too bad. When Iraq is more stable and more able to take care of itself, we'll withdraw. We came in and kicked over the applecart, so it's our "responsibility" to help set it upright. Same for Afghanistan. There is no current US policy of annexation of new territory. Once their situations stabilize they will be left to determine their own directions.
posted by: stepdad
post date: 10.01.04 (2:51 pm)
Reply to: whymrhymer
"I'm in the middle of the extremes: I think we could have approached the Iraq situation more 'surgically,' i.e., gotten rid of the threat without getting involved in restructuring the political system."
Sadly I don't think that would have been very effective, at least over the long term. It was their political system that represented the threat. As long as Saddam was in power all he had to do was wait until the time was right and he could have started to produce chemical and biological weapons, and he could have restarted his nuclear program as well. It only would have been a matter of time.
posted by: stepdad
post date: 10.01.04 (2:53 pm)
Reply to: newbie
Another I hate America Rant. Oh goodie, been at least an hour or two since I waded through the last one.
"Funny how your armies march over into other soverign nations when there is some cash at stake and installs coke dealing dictators like Noriega when that happens."
Name one other country that has done more to advance freedom or democracy around the globe. Just one.
Times up. Sorry, you are the weakest link. Goodbye.
|
|
|
