Iraq Situation is Bullshit
POSTED BY: Succatash
UPDATED: Tuesday, December 10, 2024 22:11
VIEWED: 28270
PAGE 4 of 17
I still think that the two systems are qualitatively different. The choice is either individual freedom, or essentially ownership by the state. I don't have much faith in the moral equivalence arguments, as I don't think they factually represent the context of the times.
And while I am sure that many folks would prefer the Soviets to change their ways and become more like us, again there is a large difference, not only in goals but style. Lets face it, totalitarian dictatorships have to be held together by force. Yes Tito kept the various ethnic groups from fighting each other, but had to do so with an iron fist, which later proved to simply paper over the problems, instead of solved them. It is the employment of force, the extent of government power over everyday life, that makes all the difference between the two systems.
How far were we willing to go in changing the Soviet Union. Nuclear weapons kind of screws up the historical "what if" but I think that we would have been quite happy to peacably co-exist, if it were not for the Soviet's attempts to undermine us, and our political system. Run the experiment, and see which system does better. Actually the presence of nuclear weapons force both sides to essentially take that tact, and fight containing actions in far off places like Vietnam and Afghanistan, (as well as much of the rest of the world)
As for the dictators we did side with, it was felt at the times that these were the lesser of two evils. And seeing the death and destruction wrought by communism over the years, taking Cambodia as one extreme example, I still think that it was proved correct. It would have been preferrable if these were all democracies, but in the middle of a war, you don't get ideal situations and have to deal with what is, first, rather than trying to create those situations. You have to put out the fire, before you can rebuild the house.
I think I did not explain myself well enough concerning "either you make your own decisions, or someone else does." There are really only two ways to order an individual's life. Fighting those who run your life for you, is a choice, and your decision.
It really boils down to the difference between persuasion and coercion, again the fundamental difference between capitalism and liberal democracy, and communism. You buy my product or else, I'll go try to sell it to someother guy over there, or find a new line of work or something else. What I won't do is put a gun to your head and force you to buy, or do what I say. Granted, if it is a choice between letting you kill me, or me using force to 'persuade' you not to, I will use force to protect myself. But generally speaking such situations are rather rare in every day life.
As for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, again this is a complex issue. I have a very viceral dislike for the Palestinians ever since the Achilli Lauro incident, and their further use of voilence against civilians to promote political change is distressing to say the least.
But you bring up a good point. Even prior to our support, or the Soviet support for the state of Israel, that nation had to endure a war on its first day of existence. And they won that war, as well as 4(?) others since, always against numerically superior odds. Considering that the majority of early Israelis were survivors of WW2, this is quite amazing in and of itself.
In combat, the side with the better intelligence on their opponent, a better understanding of their capabilities, logistics, positions, etc, as well as the better understanding of one's own abilities and distribution of forces, generally wins the battle, as well as the war. The old saw is backwards, Right makes Might. The side that has the most accurate model of themselves as well as their opponent, wins. I think the Israeli conflict illustrates this point profusely.
Israel has for at least several years now, shown a willingness to accept a two state solution to the Palestinian problem. The Palestinians have shown no such acceptance. It is not a matter of two sides that can't
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
I still think that the two systems are qualitatively different. The choice is either individual freedom, or essentially ownership by the state. I don't have much faith in the moral equivalence arguments, as I don't think they factually represent the context of the times.
Good points, but political systems everywhere have major differences, for reasons due to geography, cultural diversity, etc
Would you also fault semi socialistic systems in say Sweden, Canada, or France as inferior to the one in the U.S. or just different ?
Quote:
And while I am sure that many folks would prefer the Soviets to change their ways and become more like us, again there is a large difference, not only in goals but style. Lets face it, totalitarian dictatorships have to be held together by force. Yes Tito kept the various ethnic groups from fighting each other, but had to do so with an iron fist, which later proved to simply paper over the problems, instead of solved them. It is the employment of force, the extent of government power over everyday life, that makes all the difference between the two systems.
Some situations require extreme solutions, as I think the American occupation in Iraq will prove out. Keeping Sunni / Shia / Kurdish groups from open hostilities will not be easy. It may only result in by providing them a common enemy ( the occupation forces )
Other countries which have used extreme policys to hold things together are Saudi Arabia and Egypt... while these are more aligned to the U.S. are they not deserving of the same criticism
Quote:
How far were we willing to go in changing the Soviet Union. Nuclear weapons kind of screws up the historical "what if" but I think that we would have been quite happy to peacably co-exist, if it were not for the Soviet's attempts to undermine us, and our political system. Run the experiment, and see which system does better. Actually the presence of nuclear weapons force both sides to essentially take that tact, and fight containing actions in far off places like Vietnam and Afghanistan, (as well as much of the rest of the world)
What attempts to undermine ? Not quite sure what you mean.
Quote:
As for the dictators we did side with, it was felt at the times that these were the lesser of two evils. And seeing the death and destruction wrought by communism over the years, taking Cambodia as one extreme example, I still think that it was proved correct. It would have been preferrable if these were all democracies, but in the middle of a war, you don't get ideal situations and have to deal with what is, first, rather than trying to create those situations. You have to put out the fire, before you can rebuild the house.
And when elected governments are undermined for dictators which would obey ?
Thinking of Allende in Chile, The 1953 revolution in Iran, East Timor, or with your Cambodia example didn't U.S. action also contribute to the rise of the Khmer Rouge ?
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+kh0033)
Quote:
It really boils down to the difference between persuasion and coercion, again the fundamental difference between capitalism and liberal democracy, and communism. You buy my product or else, I'll go try to sell it to someother guy over there, or find a new line of work or something else. What I won't do is put a gun to your head and force you to buy, or do what I say. Granted, if it is a choice between letting you kill me, or me using force to 'persuade' you not to, I will use force to protect myself. But generally speaking such situations are rather rare in every day life.
But should using force to protect yourself, extend to protecting your economic interests in other countrys ? And if so how far can the other side go in order the fight that ?
Quote:
As for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, again this is a complex issue. I have a very viceral dislike for the Palestinians ever since the Achilli Lauro incident, and their further uNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Drakon, do you read history or do you just make it up as you go along? 
Who do you suppose set up the Shah of Iran? (Hint: it wasn't the Iranians!) The Shah's Savak learned torture techniques from the CIA, and then expanded on them in ways that shocked even their teachers. The Shah's repression and corruption eventually brought us the Ayatollah.
Do you happen to remember who supported Saddam in his fight against Iran? Do you happen to know who shipped biowarfare cultures, stainless steel fermenters, chemical weapons raw materials, reactors, "CROP SPRAYING" helicopters, sophisticated computers and software, laser targeting devices, and so forth and so on....
Got a clue as to provided strategic information on troop movements and "ground truth" kill rates for chemical weapons use on Iranian troops and civilians?
OK, how about this- WHO do you suppose provided the Stinger missiles for the Taliban?
Got any idea who set up the Saudi royal family? (Same hint- it wasn't the Saudis!)
So, you seem to think this is all cultural and economic? Nothing to do at all with foreign invaders?
YUH.
I could go on and on with specific examples from countries literally all around the world: Indonesia, the Phillipines, the Congo, Peru... Our "interventions" have ranged from assasination to mass murder using traditional weapons to biowarfare.
I'm going to collapse this argument into something you should think about: The United States has a habit of destroying democracies and setting up dictatorships around the world. (If you want, I'll give you a list of countries we've really scrwed up, you can pick one at random and I'll provide the details. But I'll bet you don't take me up on this offer! 
)
The corporations get cheap labor or cheap raw materials. The dictators get a cut of the action. "We" hold the puppet's strings because they require our military assistance. How convenient all around!!
----------------------------
I've read several of these, "we've had our hands in their cookie jars" stuff for a while, and sorry it does not wash. It in no way, shape or form justifies the terrorists action. Make no mistake about it, that is exactly what you are doing here. Trying to tell me it is okay they killed 3,000 people on 9-11.
No matter how you dress it up, that is what this "root causes" argument is trying to do. Make it okay for mass murder.
-----------------------
We could do so much good simply by not doing so much bad.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Here's an interesting old thread I found, just before U.S. went to war. It's interesting to see how many people are Pro-War and they thought the operation would be short and shockingly awesome.
"UN Inspectors Told To Leave Iraq Immediately"
March 17, 2003
http://fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=11&t=1701
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"It's all about the oil" Been saying it since whenever.
But everyone INSISTED it was about WMD. I'll take them at their word. There are now no WMD. Mission accomplished- let's go home.
I'LL SUPPLY THE BEER IF WULF WILL SUPPLY THE TEQUILA! 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Posted by Succatash: Here's an interesting old thread I found, just before U.S. went to war. It's interesting to see how many people are Pro-War and they thought the operation would be short and shockingly awesome.
I think there are still a lot of people who believe that the war has been short and well... not shockingly awesome but something that has done good.
-------------------------------------
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
Aristotle
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hmmm... let's see. We've killed approximately 10,000 Iraqis. Bechtel and Haliburton are making out like bandits. (tsk tsk what am I saying... they ARE bandits!) Aside from losing over 200 soldiers, we're being sucked dry by billions of dollars. The folks in Iraq still don't have water, electricity, medical care, or fuel. That's the downside.
Despite Cheney's and Rumsfeld's best efforts, we still don't have control of Iraqi oil. Bad for our corporations, but good for the people of Iraq.
The upside? Saddam is out of power.
I'm not sure that we can pull off a happy ending. The situation is really weird. The forces of destruction and construction are pretty closely balanced.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I think there are still a lot of people who believe that the war has been short and well... not shockingly awesome but something that has done good.
But I think the real question is, are those people living in Iraq. If the people their feel it has done good, or the new regime the U.S. is building is a good thing, then things will stand a chance to work. On the other hand, if the people there respond to the U.S. as a foreign interloper or invader then the process is doomed from the start. Did you check out the General Zinni article a few posts back ?
Maybe I'm a pestimist, but I see bad times ahead
-------------------------------------
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
Aristotle
" If wishes were Horses, then we'd all be eatting Steak "
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, all the soldiers who signed up for a free college degree got screwed. If they don't fight, they go to jail.
"Anti-War U.S. Marine Sentenced to Six Months in Jail"
Sun Sep 7, 2:27 PM ET
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=11&u=/n
m/20030907/ts_nm/crime_marine_dc_5
A military jury found an anti-war U.S. Marine reservist guilty of unauthorized absence and sentenced him to six months in jail for refusing to report to his unit during the Iraq war.
The verdict was less than the desertion charge the U.S. military had sought, which could have put Lance Cpl. Stephen Funk behind bars for a year...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ahh!! How did I ever forget this animation!!!
And now for more political commentary from Mittens and Snowdrop:
http://www.matazone.co.uk/kitty7.html
Enjoy.
LOTV: Ima-who-whata-whoichy-whoda-whazza--huh?
Garapagosu Last Update: 6/24/03
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME