American/British Assassination of the Leader of Iraq
POSTED BY: Ghoulman
UPDATED: Friday, June 25, 2004 02:25
VIEWED: 14132
PAGE 5 of 12
Quote:So? I think you're seeing what you want to see, and whatever that is, taking things out of context isn’t making it any clearer.
Originally posted by rue:
Finn,
Exactly how far would you tie the hands of the US? Should the US never act in the interest of its people?
Certainly we agree that supporting Democracy is a great goal.
Why we supported the coups and assassinations that we did.
These are your words, not mine.
Let me tell you a story, rue. Do you know who Robert Baer is? He is one of those CIA operatives that you like to fanaticizes is out breaking fingers and vilely forcing capitalism down the throats poor happy communists. He was sent to Iraq to do what other operatives had been called upon to do in other places. To represent the US in a nation’s struggle for freedom, capitalism, democracy, whatever you want to call it. He worked in Iraq for several years. I don’t know how much of it is declassified so I’m going to keep his actions there a secret, but needless to say, his job was to overthrow Saddam Hussein. He gathered intelligence. Boots on the ground, you know. That’s one of those thing that everyone says our intelligence departments are lacking. He helped organized the efforts of some Iraqi Generals who wanted to remove Saddam Hussein and stop the Stalinist madness that was destroying Iraq. Sounds like a good plan? Well he got as far as getting everyone together, and all he needed was the go-ahead form Washington.
Instead Clinton recalled Agent Baer and investigated him for the alleged crime of attempting to assassinate Saddam Hussein. This is the worst example of Political Correctness gone crazy that I’ve ever seen. Baer was accused of a crime for doing what his country had told him to do, remove an evil dictator at the behest of Iraqi oppression. Now this would not guarantee that Iraq would become democratic, but it certainly wasn’t going to under Hussein. So it was at least a step in the right direction. If Hussein had been removed, we might have avoided a war. Anyone with half a brain knew that if Saddam stayed in power a war between the US and Iraq was inevitable. Iraq was violating cease fire agreements, violating UN resolution, avoiding weapons inspectors, threatening the US and all the while with the ability to create or currently hold substantial stockpiles of WMDs. There’s no way we could have avoided a war, without removing Saddam Hussein. We had one solutions of removing Hussein that would have avoided the horrors of war.
You seem to want to pretend, somewhat naively, that we live in a simple world. So here’s a question for you: You want to promote democracy. So how would you promote democracy in Iraq? Leaving Hussein in power is not going to promote democracy. So that solution is out right away. Your other solutions are to remove him covertly, as Agent Baer attempted to do, or overtly as was done with this war. Now granted the war has a much better chance of actually installing a democratic regime because it’s much more hands on. But removing Saddam covertly might have at least alleviated some of the horrors, and possibly jumpstarted a move towards democratization, without the need for a full-scale war.
What do you do? Either way, you’re going to be damned. If you choose to remove him by war, you’re going to have to loose Americans as well as cause all kind of political problems in the UN, which was making lots of money of Saddam. But you have a fair chance of putting a real democracy in place. Or you remove him covertly, and there is a civil war, several thousand people die, at best a quasi-democratic regime is put in place. Suspicion of US involvement leads to conspiracy theories. The regime is a little less brutal then the last, so the assumption, accompanying the conspiracy theories is that it is “pro-American” puppet in the US's "impire" when in reality it very like is not. What would you do?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn, I'm not trying to be tedious here, but I'd like to recap your arguments if I may.
First you claimed the US did NOT directly support coups, assassinations etc:
Really? That's like saying I back IBM. I'm sending money to support my investment. The US does this a lot. We send money to many different places to support our investments. How these people choose to deal with their problem is up to them.
You dropped the argument in favor of this:
Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq are three nations that the Soviets sought to acquire.
The US's intent in all this, was to maintain Iran and Iraq as independent and free as possible.
The US **backed** (that slippery word) parties in Iran and Iraq that would (1) maintain a free and independent Iran and Iraq (to the degree that such a thing could be expected) and (2) prevent the Soviets from dominion over such an important strategic site.
(Though the 'free' part is patently and provably absurd:
Iran ( http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iran/savak/ "Shah-an-Shah [King of Kings] Mohammad Reza Pahlevi was restored to the Peacock Throne of Iran with the assistance of the Central Intelligence Agency in 1953. CIA mounted a coup against the left-leaning government of Dr. Mohammad Mossadeq, which had planned to nationalize Iran's oil industry. SAVAK increasingly to symbolized the Shah's rule from 1963-79, a period of corruption in the royal family, one-party rule, the torture and execution of thousands of political prisoners, suppression of dissent, and alienation of the religious masses.
Iraq http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17468
It was Rumsfeld and Shultz who told Hussein and his emissaries that U.S. statements generally condemning the use of chemical weapons would not interfere with relations between secular Iraq and the Reagan administration, which took Iraq off the terrorist-nations list and embraced Hussein as a bulwark against fundamentalist Iran.)
And you justify the US because
How these parties chose to achieve these ends was their decision ... That they achieved them was sufficient. If that seems cold to you, it is probably because you are unfamiliar with the 100-150 million innocent civilians killed within Soviet Gulags
And also
Should the US never act in the interest of its people?
Then there was a lengthy discussion about the uses of murder, by the ones to millions, in international policy, where eventually you equated US action to small temporary pain to prevent larger pain:
We do not do what we do, because we enjoy inflicting pain; we do it because the likely or potential outcome of not doing it may be far, far worse.
Why we supported the coups and assassinations that we did.
At this point the argument has done a complete reversal, from saying the US doesn't intervene (in context, murder), to saying it does, but it's a good thing.
Then you introduce the idea that lack of 'perfection' is an understandable excuse, and abandon your own argument that the US does what it does for good reasons (to prevent more pain later):
So because the US cannot be said to be perfect any comment no matter how out of context that vilifies the US must be taken as true? What you are trying to do is force the argument into proving that the US is “righteous,” which is hard to do. (I didn't introduce the concept, I did put a single word to it.)
Then you get to the meat of what I think is your position's major weakness:
or that the US prefers dictators to democratic regimes
Well, Finn, we pretty much do. I will continue to post references of recent US-backed dictatorships, not just in the Western Hemishere, but around the globe. If you want, you can discount every single reference I post on the basis of being privy to special knowledge, but your position will appear weaker as a result.
Anyway, aside from racking up the references, I have a life to live.
Have a good remaining weekend, all.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
So you would rather support the little guy? Where is he going to work? How is he going to feed his family? The generals, the landowners, and the international corporations provide the money, the jobs and the law that is needed to create a democracy. How many of the Founding Fathers of the US were poor peasants? How many of the Nobles that created the UK democratic system were peasants? Democracy is not created by poor peasants. You cannot create a liberal democracy from the ground up. You’ve got to have landowners and generals and business
Like I said, always sticking up for the big guy!
Where would the people work? On the land that they WOULD have had, had someone not stolen it. In the factories that were built by... guess what? More workers. The human race managed to come up with fire, agriculture, and the alphabet without oligarchs. Everything that is now being done- farming, fishing, research, management, law- can be done (and done better) without the 'help' of generals, oligarchs, and big bisusness. If you want a good example, check out teh Free Software movement. ("Free as in freedom, not beer.") We need humaniform parasites like a submarine needs a screen door.
So, getting personal here: Who the heck do you identify with in Firefly? Sure can't be the protagonists!
.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn
Quote:
..freedom, capitalism, democracy, whatever you want to call it.
Now, this is the third time you've said "whatever".
Your heart's in the right place Finn, but that "whatever" is what's getting you into trouble. Thats' terribly sloppy thinking. When I asked you what was the DIFFERENCE between an elected government and a junta, democracy and capitalism, tyranny and communsim, you declined to answer. I spotted this weaknesst in your thinking right away. In your mind you string this all together... freedom/capitalism/democracy/ethics/whatever and godless/tyrannical/communusm/whatever.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:No, I never said that. Once again you’re seeing what you want to see. I said the US did not assassinate the leader of the particular nation in question, but rather may have supported the coup in which the assassination took place, which is something, as I pointed out, the US may do. I don’t know where you got the idea that it was dropped.
Originally posted by rue:
First you claimed the US did NOT directly support coups, assassinations etc:
Quote:Previously posted by me:
Originally posted by rue:
Though the 'free' part is patently and provably absurd:
“The US backed parties in Iran and Iraq that would (1) maintain a free and independent Iran and Iraq (to the degree that such a thing could be expected) and (2) prevent the Soviets from dominion over such an important strategic site.” [Emphasis added.]
Quote:In some cases, that is exactly right.
Originally posted by rue:
Then there was a lengthy discussion about the uses of murder, by the ones to millions, in international policy, where eventually you equated US action to small temporary pain to prevent larger pain:
Quote:Previously posted be me:
Originally posted by rue:
At this point the argument has done a complete reversal, from saying the US doesn't intervene (in context, murder), to saying it does, but it's a good thing.
“The US backed parties in Iran and Iraq that would (1) maintain a free and independent Iran and Iraq (to the degree that such a thing could be expected) and (2) prevent the Soviets from dominion over such an important strategic site.” [Emphasis added.]
Quote:No I didn’t abandon anything, what I did was prevent you from using the ridiculous argument that if something isn’t perfect it must ipso facto be wrong.
Originally posted by rue:
Then you introduce the idea that lack of 'perfection' is an understandable excuse, and abandon your own argument that the US does what it does for good reasons (to prevent more pain later):
Quote:Well, as I said if that floats your boat then I’m happy for you. One problem though. All the countries that you have referenced so far currently have democratic or emerging democratic governments, something they didn’t have just a few years ago. It’s hard to say exactly why South/Central America have suddenly become democratic, when only 20 years ago you could set your watch by the coups, and there’s no guarantee it will last, but certainly the US has been involved for a quit some time in this part of world, while these countries were dictators and while they are struggling democracies.
Originally posted by rue:
Then you get to the meat of what I think is your position's major weakness:
or that the US prefers dictators to democratic regimes
Well, Finn, we pretty much do. I will continue to post references of recent US-backed dictatorships, not just in the Western Hemishere, but around the globe. If you want, you can discount every single reference I post on the basis of being privy to special knowledge, but your position will appear weaker as a result.
If indeed your conjecture is true, then it seems unlikely that we would continue to back these now democratic regimes, since according to you we prefer dictators. Furthermore, it would seems even less likely that, given your insistance that we enact coups to maintain dictatorships, that we wouldn’t attempt to remove these democracies as well. Yet instead we continue to support these countries even as they struggle with their new democracies.
Furthermore, US involvement in other parts of the world has helped to bring about democracies including: South Korea, Japan, and Germany. The free markets that we supported in Communist Russia helped to bring about the democratization of Russia and dozens of Soviet occupied nations and similar support is helping to open up China. We supported and continue to support the furthering developments in the struggling democracy in the Balkans and the soon to emerge struggling democracy in Iraq. Not
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yeah, that makes me tyrant, alright.
Originally posted by SignyM:
FinnQuote:
..freedom, capitalism, democracy, whatever you want to call it.
Now, this is the third time you've said "whatever".
Quote:But this would make them landowners wouldn’t it? And according to you it’s bad to support landowners.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Like I said, always sticking up for the big guy!
Where would the people work? On the land that they WOULD have had, had someone not stolen it.
Quote:Who owns the factory? I guess I can’t support him so those jobs are questionable at best.
Originally posted by SignyM:
In the factories that were built by... guess what? More workers. The human race managed to come up with fire, agriculture, and the alphabet without oligarchs.
Quote:Without generals who will support the defense that will prevent someone else from coming over and taking away your land? Without business who will sell the products of your farming, fishing, research and, wait a tick
Originally posted by SignyM:
Everything that is now being done- farming, fishing, research, management, law- can be done (and done better) without the 'help' of generals, oligarchs, and big bisusness.
Management? Law? You can’t support these things. They are the big guys. The guys in charge. Shame! Shame!
Quote:I identify with Jayne 110%.
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, getting personal here: Who the heck do you identify with in Firefly? Sure can't be the protagonists!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
..freedom, capitalism, democracy, whatever you want to call it.
Quote:
Now, this is the third time you've said "whatever".Yeah, that makes me tyrant, alright.
No, it makes you a VERY sloppy thinker. But if you want to call yourself a tyrant, then... whatever.
Quote:
But this would make them landowners wouldn’t it? And according to you it’s bad to support landowners.
No, it's bad to support people who own stuff but don't work it themselves. You used "landowners" very sloppily!
Quote:
Who owns the factory? I guess I can’t support him so those jobs are questionable at best.
What ARE you saying? Why is ownership a necessity?
Quote:
Without generals who will support the defense that will prevent someone else from coming over and taking away your land?
I think that was the whole idea of a militia.
Quote:
Without business who will sell the products of your farming, fishing, research and, wait a tick
HUH??? Well, maybe farmers will sell their farm products, and fishermen will sell their fish, and truckers will haul it around, refrigerator makers will keep it cold, reseachers will post their research... um, nowhere do I see a spot for generals, oligarchs, and capitalists. So tell me, where do they fit in?
Quote:
Management? Law? You can’t support these things. They are the big guys. The guys in charge. Shame! Shame!
MORE SLOPPY THINKING! Shame! Shame on you!
I'm a supervisor who works for a manager, who works for a director, who works for a DEO who works for a CEO. And guess what? Managment is a legitimate function... it's WORK and we get paid a salary for doing a good job. But we're not "the people in charge" - we all report to a Board and in our organization, THOSE are the guys in charge.
Quote:
I identify with Jayne 110%.
Figures!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yep.
Originally posted by SignyM:
No, it makes you a VERY sloppy thinker. But if you want to call yourself a tyrant, then... whatever.
Quote:From the Marriam-Webster dictionary:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
But this would make them landowners wouldn’t it? And according to you it’s bad to support landowners.
No, it's bad to support people who own stuff but don't work it themselves. You used "landowners" very sloppily!
Landowner: an owner of land.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=landowner
Sorry, dude, but it implies nothing about those who work the land. And you did say that it was bad to support landowners, literally, not landowners who work the land. You said landowners.
Quote:Because if you have no intentions of supporting the people who own the factories or worse if you intend to treat them as the bad guys, then what’s to stop them from not bothering to hire anyone or selling their factory as scrape, so that they don’t have to deal with a government that is hostile to their way of life?
Originally posted by SignyM:
What ARE you saying? Why is ownership a necessity?
Quote:Someone’s going to have to run the militia. You can’t have a leaderless military.
Originally posted by SignyM:
I think that was the whole idea of a militia.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Without business who will sell the products of your farming, fishing, research and, wait a tick
HUH??? Well, maybe farmers will sell their farm products, and fishermen will sell their fish, and truckers will haul it around, refrigerator makers will keep it cold, reseachers will post their research... um, nowhere do I see a spot for generals, oligarchs, and capitalists. So tell me, where do they fit in?
They fit in with the farmers who sell the farm products, and the fisherman who sell their fish and the truckers who haul it around and the refrigerator makers who keep it cold. These are all business, and what are going to do when someone says they don’t want to be a seller of fish they want to be an owner of a fishing industry? Do you really expect people to live in a substance level of poverty just because you’ve got ideological issues? This is the communism argument. This is why communism is oppressive. As soon as someone decides to better themselves and move up above the subsistence level, they are branded evil capitalists. How are you going to stop these evil capitalist? Imprison them? Kill them?
Quote:Of course management is a legitimate function. I never said otherwise. You’re the one saying that it’s wrong to support those in charge. This is your story, your sloppy thinking not mine.
Originally posted by SignyM:
MORE SLOPPY THINKING! Shame! Shame on you!
I'm a supervisor who works for a manager, who works for a director, who works for a DEO who works for a CEO. And guess what? Managment is a legitimate function... it's WORK and we get paid a salary for doing a good job. But we're not "the people in charge" - we all report to a Board and in our organization, THOSE are the guys in charge.
Quote:Jayne is cool.
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:
I identify with Jayne 110%.
Figures!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hmm... let's see... working my way backwards...
Quote:Yes, but considering how much Mal values loyalty, Jane has some lessons to learn!
Jane is cool
You said
Quote:Actually, no, it's YOUR story. I never said "those in charge" you did:
Of course management is a legitimate function. I never said otherwise. You’re the one saying that it’s wrong to support those in charge. This is your story, your sloppy thinking not mine.
Quote:That's part of that "generals, oligarchs, poor defenseless international businesses and WHATEVER" process. "Those in charge" is too open to misunderstanding. Please clarify what YOU mean.
Management? Law? You can’t support these things. They are the big guys. The guys in charge. Shame! Shame!
You said about generals, oligarchs, and poor defenseless internationl corporations:
Quote:Yes, but what do they DO- besides owning things, that is?
They fit in with the farmers who sell the farm products, and the fisherman who sell their fish and the truckers who haul it around and the refrigerator makers who keep it cold. These are all business, and what [you] are going to do when someone says they don’t want to be a seller of fish they want to be an owner of a fishing industry?
You said
Quote:See, there's that godless/ tyrannical/ backward/ unethical/ oppressive/whatever/ communism" issue again! Aside from the fact that these ideas seem to bump into each other in your brain a lot, do you have an argument as to WHY capitalism is the font of invention and progress and communism is not? Pretend I'm as stupid as a computer and explain it to me step by step. BTW- how do you feel about IP? Continuing the paragraph you said
Do you really expect people to live in a substance level of poverty just because you’ve got ideological issues?
Quote:Sure, why not? heh heh heh. Anyway, you just said communism = subsistence level. How did you get there? (same as above)
This is the communism argument. This is why communism is oppressive. As soon as someone decides to better themselves and move up above the subsistence level, they are branded evil capitalists. How are you going to stop these evil capitalist? Imprison them? Kill them?
Quote:This is a GREAT idea! When do we start???
Because if you have no intentions of supporting the people who own the factories or worse if you intend to treat them as the bad guys, then what’s to stop them from not bothering to hire anyone or selling their factory as scrap, so that they don’t have to deal with a government that is hostile to their way of life?
Actually, I never called those who got land "landowners", you did
Quote:They might own it in cooperative, for example, or obtain long-term leases based on their ability to work the land. I can think of a LOT of structures that aren't land ownership. Ownership, BTW, is a societal concept with all kinds of imposed limitations. For example, you can't own air. You can own a gun, but you can't do just anything you want with it. In other words, it's an artifical concept, not a "natural fact".
But this would make them landowners wouldn’t it? And according to you it’s bad to support landowners.
If you would respond to what I'm saying instead of what you THINK I'm saying, we'd get a lot farther. BTW, you have not yet gotten to what I think of as the ESSENTIAL function of capitalism.
TTUL
Edited 05/25/04 for clarification.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That’s why I like him. He’s probably the most honest character in the whole show.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:Yes, but considering how much Mal values loyalty, Jane has some lessons to learn!
Jane is cool
Quote:Yes, that’s true. You referred to them as the “big guys.” You said that the “big guys” are landowners, generals and corporations. That sounds to me like those in charge, perhaps not. In your hypothetical communist nation, the only one in charge would be the government.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Actually, no. I never said "those in charge", you did.
Quote:I guess that’s just it. Poor people with simple jobs don’t do much, do they? They don’t have that much power. They are easy to control. Which is the hallmark of communism. If you get rid of all the “big guys,” the government is all that’s left in control. Communism = pure totalitarianism.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:Yes, but what do they DO- besides owning thgins, that is?
They fit in with the farmers who sell the farm products, and the fisherman who sell their fish and the truckers who haul it around and the refrigerator makers who keep it cold. These are all business, and what are going to do when someone says they don’t want to be a seller of fish they want to be an owner of a fishing industry?
Quote:Capitalism encourages free market, free enterprise, free thinking. Communism encourages a subsistence level of poverty and easily controlled masses.
Originally posted by SignyM:
See, there's that "godless/tyrannical/backward/unethical/oppressive/
whatever/communism" issue again! Aside from the fact that these ideas seem to bump into each oyher in your brain a lot, do you have an argument as to why capitalism is the font of invention and progress and communism is not? BTW- how do you feel about IP?
IP?
Quote:Exactly, that’s the way it’s done.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Sure, why not? heh heh heh
Quote:No actually you did, remember this:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Actually, I never called those who got land "landowners", you didQuote:
But this would make them landowners wouldn’t it? And according to you it’s bad to support landowners.
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, I suppose that instead of sticking up for the people (peasants in this case, not proletariat) you prefer to stick up for the generals, landownwers, and those poor defenseless international corporations?
See, that's what I said- You're always sticking up for the big guy! [Emphasis Added.]
According to YOU, generals, landownwers(sic) and “poor defenseless international corporations,” are the “big guy.”
This is all your story. I’m just trying to keep up.
Quote:That’s true. In any free society, there must be limitations to what one can do in order to maximize everyone’s freedom. But in the hypothetical society you seem to be describing, the only one allowed to own land is the government; everyone else must be poor farmers, fisherman etc. No on is allowed to gain any degree of independence from the government. That sounds like totalitarianism to me.
Originally posted by SignyM:
They might own it in cooperative, for example, or obtain long-term leases based on their ability to work the land. I can think of a LOT of structures that aren't land ownership. Ownership, BTW, is an artificial societal concept with all kinds of inherent limitations. (For example, you can't own air. You can own a gun, but you can't do just anything you want with it.)
Quote:I don’t think you realize what you are saying.
Originally posted by SignyM:
If you would respond to what I'm saying instead of what you THINK I'm saying, we'd get a lot farther.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME