How long will appeasement work? [Archive] - Straight Dope Message Board

Chumpsky

11-09-2002, 01:01 AM

The BBC had a hilarious article earlier today, here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2426153.stm), which states that, "Leaders from around the world have welcomed the approval by the UN Security Council of a new resolution on Iraq." "Around the world," according to the BBC is the U.S., U.K., France and Israel. Apparently the BBC is becoming as servile in its support of the British state as the American press is to its own state. They still have a way to go, but they are getting there.

So, the U.N. basically caved, in a historic act of appeasement, paving the way for a U.S. invasion of Iraq on pretexts that nobody takes seriously. Munich, anybody? The members of the security council, either too afraid of the consequences of crossing the U.S. (perhaps recalling the case of Yemen voting against the first Gulf War, and the consequent punishment of the tiny, impoverished country), or were happy to go along, after being assured that they would get their piece of the pie when Iraq is carved up. Other goodies being handed out to the sufficiently servile were passes on monstrous crimes, such as the terror war Russia is waging in Chechnya, and the ongoing repression of dissidents in China, etc.

What I can't understand is what the rest of the world is thinking when they appease the U.S. in its bloodthirsty ambitions. Don't they understand that when you demolish international law, that your own security is reduced? After all, it was only 60 years ago when another British head of state appeased a different aggressive state bent on world-wide domination. Or perhaps they are all just cowards, afraid to stand up to the bully on the block.

tomndebb

11-09-2002, 01:13 AM

While your inflammatory comparison of the U.S. to Nazi Germany will, I'm sure, be carved up by other posters, it would be interesting to discover just how you believe that "impoverished" Yemen* was "punished" following the Gulf War and on what basis you believe that Iraq will be "carved up" and distributed to--Whom? France and Israel?).

While I am sure that you wanted to portray yourself as an iconoclastic fighter for truth and freedom, the sheer weight of the unexpressed assumptions in your post simply make you look strident (and, perhaps, historically ignorant).

* I am not denying Yemen's low GNP and GDP, but since they are currently rather wealthier than they were in 1990, your linking of poverty and punishment is, umm, odd.

tomndebb

11-09-2002, 01:15 AM

(BTW, the U.S. has "money hungry" ambitions, not "bloodthirsty" ones. Get you cliches right or you will really look silly. The U.S. may indulge in bloodletting, but it never revels in it.)

Chumpsky

11-09-2002, 01:33 AM

Originally posted by tomndebb
While your inflammatory comparison of the U.S. to Nazi Germany will, I'm sure, be carved up by other posters, it would be interesting to discover just how you believe that "impoverished" Yemen* was "punished" following the Gulf War and on what basis you believe that Iraq will be "carved up" and distributed to--Whom? France and Israel?).When the Security Council vote on the first Gulf War occurred, the only "no" vote came from Yemen. By the time the Yemeni delegate put his hand down, a U.S. representative was at his side with the words: "That is the most expensive 'no' vote you'll ever cast." Yemen is a poor country, so $70 million means a lot. Well, I think it was the next day, or maybe the next week, that the U.S. completely cut off its $70 million aid package to Yemen. Get the picture? See, $70 million is nothing to the U.S., but it means a whole hell of a lot to a country like Yemen. Just the sheer spite of the act has to leave you in awe. Furthermore, the U.S. enlisted Saudi Arabia in its effort to punish Yemen, which ejected thousands of Yemeni workers from its territory. cite (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=350300)

Regarding the carving up of Iraq, I mean this is no secret. If you have been following this issue at all, you should know that a main sticking point with France and Russia was the large contracts the two countries had with Iraq to develop its oil fields once the sanctions are lifted. Furthermore, Iraq is indebted to Russia for some $8 billion, I think. In order to get the two countries to go along with the U.S. war, the U.S. had to promise them a piece of the pie.

Nobody on the security council can have any illusions about what this means, unless they are monstrously stupid. When the security council met in 1998 to discuss what was referred to as "Iraq's ongoing defiance of weapons inspectors" but was in reality the U.S. attempt to thwart the inspection process, a classic scene ensued. Delegate after delegate came out of the chambers, re-iterating that the agreement that they had reached did not give the U.S. the right to use force. Finally, the U.S. delegate came out and said "we think it does."

This resolution is simply cover for the U.S. invasion of Iraq, to cast it in terms of "multi-lateralism." It is nothing more than propaganda. That the U.S. would use the U.N. for the precise opposite reason that the U.N. was formed in the first place is obscene, but nobody should place any credence in the non-existant support for U.S. military adventurism.

Lastly, I do think that Bush is bloodthirsty. I think he just likes killing people.

tomndebb

11-09-2002, 01:48 AM

Just the sheer spite of the act has to leave you in awe. IF it happened in the way you described it, perhaps it was spiteful. So where does Yemen get its $180M in aid every year, today? (And what was the reason they provided for the vote for which they were "punished"?)

It is all very well to quote the Independent as if it was an "independent" news source, but you are still coming off as simply one more Yank-basher. (And I say this as someone who has actively argued against Dubya's silly "Axis of Evil" and his preposterous claims that Iraq is a threat to the U.S.)

Apos

11-09-2002, 01:49 AM

---Lastly, I do think that Bush is bloodthirsty. I think he just likes killing people.---

Why?

Chumpsky

11-09-2002, 02:02 AM

Originally posted by Apos
---Lastly, I do think that Bush is bloodthirsty. I think he just likes killing people.---

Why? Notice the way he talks. Whenever he talks about some aspect of the economy or the environment, or some social issue, he blunders through like he is trying to pass an oral exam. He is distracted and basically all over the place. On the other hand, when he starts talking about killing people, then he can talk with vigor, you can see a little gleam in his eyes. His syntax is still atrocious, but his speech is more coherent and fluid. When he talks about how we are going to "hunt down the evildoer" or we are going to get them "dead or alive," he really comes to life (no pun intended.) You can tell he relishes the role of the punisher and the warrior-king.

Recall also that Bush set the record for executing people as governer of Texas. When asked if he thought any of the 140 people he executed might have been wrongfully convicted, he blandly brushed aside the notion, insisting that he was "absolutely certain" that they were all guilty. He also openly mocked a woman executed in Texas, Karla Faye Tucker, and chuckled and grinned in a debate at a question about Texas lawyers who had slept through murder trials. His spirits these days are soaring at the idea that he will get to kill lots and lots of Iraqis who can't fight back.

elucidator

11-09-2002, 08:45 AM

Well, you have a point Chumpsky, but I fear wildly overstated. I recall a quote from John Fowles, IIRC, to the effect that war is tempting to men because it affords them the opportunity to look gravely serious, it is the one thing that stops women from laughing at them.

Dewey Cheatem Undhow

11-09-2002, 09:16 AM

Originally posted by Chumpsky
When the Security Council vote on the first Gulf War occurred, the only "no" vote came from Yemen. By the time the Yemeni delegate put his hand down, a U.S. representative was at his side with the words: "That is the most expensive 'no' vote you'll ever cast." Yemen is a poor country, so $70 million means a lot. Well, I think it was the next day, or maybe the next week, that the U.S. completely cut off its $70 million aid package to Yemen. Get the picture? See, $70 million is nothing to the U.S., but it means a whole hell of a lot to a country like Yemen. Just the sheer spite of the act has to leave you in awe. Furthermore, the U.S. enlisted Saudi Arabia in its effort to punish Yemen, which ejected thousands of Yemeni workers from its territory. cite (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=350300) What you call "spite" I call "consequences." Surely the Yemeni delegation knew that if they opposed the US, the US would withdraw their aid. Surely they weighed the costs and benefits of their decision. Surely they came to the decision that voting "no" was more important than the aid package. That's their perrogative.

But the US is not obliged to give aid to anyone, and in particular it is not obliged to give aid to countries who oppose it on the international stage. Why help someone who's spitting in your eye?

Really, what's the problem here?Recall also that Bush set the record for executing people as governer of Texas.Ah, you are aware that Bush didn't go out and hunt down 140 people to kill on his own, right? The decision to pursue a capital case are made by local D.A.'s in each individual case. And the Texas governor has very limited powers when it comes to granting stays of execution. And the number of folks going to death row under Bush weren't that different than the number under previous Texas governors. Whatever the problems with the death penalty as used in the state of Texas (and I admit, there are many), it's silly to say those problems are uniquely attributable to Bush.

The rest of your points trying to paint Bush as some kind of real-life Hannibal Lecter are both wholly subjective and, frankly, stupid.

elucidator

11-09-2002, 09:33 AM

And Dewey gets to say "stupid" again. He's going for the record. Of course, its "frankly stupid" which shows reluctance.

There are "problems" with the death penalty as administered in Texas. Guess that depends on what you think of as a "problem". I have problems with the death penalty even when fairly adjudicated. I have no qualms about such an admission, I hold humanity as a value even above justice. Killing people for a crime they did commit isn't a good thing. Killing someone for a crime they didn't commit is an obscenity.

13 men have been released from death row in Illinois, 13 men who are demonstrably innocent of the crimes they were to be killed for. Can anyone seriously suggest that Texas jurisprudence is superior to Illinois? So utterly superior that the Man Who Fell Up can say with a straight face that he is certain that no innocent persons have been executed?

A decent man would be ashamed. Make of that what you will.

hawthorne

11-09-2002, 09:36 AM

Oh, really. The Yemen thing - you make it sound like the US went out of its way to punish the place. But no, it cut its aid. It's not a horrible act of revenge to stop giving gifts. Gifts I might add, that those who are so determined to say that anything the US touches must be shit that their opinions are entirely determined by the day-by-day breeze of the reporting of US policy would be decrying as worse than useless and symbolic of cultural hegemony.

The US has got the UN to agree on a resolution. For a while that looked unlikely; that they would go it alone. I'm of the view that this would have been most unfortunate for international relations and international law. I'm guessing you thought that too, Chumpsky. So now I'm wary, but glad. Tell me what could the US government have done in this instance to convince you that they were not engaged in some elaborate conspiracy? What action would have made you reconsider their motives?

Bryan Ekers

11-09-2002, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by Chumpsky
Apparently the BBC is becoming as servile in its support of the British state as the American press is to its own state. They still have a way to go, but they are getting there.

And its about damn time, the lousy ungrateful snobby Brits should be licking Uncle Sam's boot for saving them in both World Wars!

Just kidding. Canada helped, too.

I hope this irreverent display adequately demonstrates how seriously I take the OP and his preposterous statements which I assume were supposed to be inflammatory but turned out to be just ridiculous.

(bow, exit stage right)

Dewey Cheatem Undhow

11-09-2002, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by elucidator
And Dewey gets to say "stupid" again. He's going for the record.It's an easy record to go for when you've got the aptly-named Chumpsky around. He's easily filling the "over-the-top leftist foolishness" niche recently vacated by Ace0Spades.

I mean really -- he's relying on things like "gleams in the eye" to paint Bush as Hannibal Lecter. If that isn't stupid, what is it? I think the shoe fits.13 men have been released from death row in Illinois, 13 men who are demonstrably innocent of the crimes they were to be killed for. Can anyone seriously suggest that Texas jurisprudence is superior to Illinois? So utterly superior that the Man Who Fell Up can say with a straight face that he is certain that no innocent persons have been executed?Point of fact, it's never been shown that an innocent person in Illinois or Texas has ever been actually executed -- the fact that the 13 men were released would seem to demonstrate that the appeals process worked well. (Indeed, it might have been better that they were on death row -- inmates drawing life sentences don't get bleeding-heart lawyers and law professors to file pro bono appellate briefs on their behalf).

But I understand there is a lack of certainty at play. The fact that 13 souls were released raises the possibility, however remote, that there were other poor souls who went overlooked. Bush's words were overstatement, in that we can never know with 100% metaphysical certainty that a prisoner committed the crime for which he was incarcerated. But what can be said is that death penalty cases get reviewed with greater appellate scrutiny than other types of cases, and that scrutiny gives us an acceptable level of certainty in the eventual outcome.

But back to Bush -- taken as a given that he (like most of his fellow Texans, and indeed like most leading Democrats, including Al Gore) is pro-death penalty, how would you have him answer that question? Do you think he would be attacked less for a statement that indicated less than total confidence in the judicial process?A decent man would be ashamed. Make of that what you will. Of course, Chumpsky wasn't trying to make a point about the death penalty in America; he was trying to paint Bush as a bloodthirsty monster. A decent man would be ashamed to try to paint that picture. Chumpsky isn't ashamed. Make of that what you will.

(And FWIW I'm really more interested in Chumpsky's Yemen point than this one)

Duck Duck Goose

11-09-2002, 10:17 AM

The Beeb only featured those particular "world leaders" because those are the ones of the most interest to their readership. The Security Council resolution was unanimous, so besides the USA, Russia, China, France, and the UK, it's also Mexico, Mauritius, Norway, Singapore, Syria, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Colombia, Guinea, and Ireland who may be taken to approve of it.

Then there's Germany.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,69597,00.html
BERLIN (AP) — Germany says it's now up to Saddam Hussein to show he's serious about peace.

In a statement, Germany's foreign minister Joschka Fischer applauded the U.N. Security Council resolution calling for thorough and immediate weapons inspections.

He said the measure is a "clear signal to Baghdad" that it "must realize what serious consequences" would result should it fail to comply.

In September, the German official had urged the U.N. to pursue further weapons inspections before resorting to military action, saying, "In no case should we escalate."The Arab League, and Egypt.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2428205.stm
The Arab world has given a cautious response to the new United Nations Security Council resolution on disarming Iraq.

Arab League spokesman Hisham Yussef simply said the regional group "respects Security Council resolutions" and that the repercussions of the vote on the new resolution would be discussed at Arab League talks in Cairo over the weekend.

< snip >

Egypt, a key US ally in the region, has pledged to keep lobbying Iraq to comply with the Security Council.

"President Hosni Mubarak has urged the Iraqi Government since the start of the crisis to respect the UN resolutions," Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher said after a telephone conversation with US Secretary of State Colin Powell. In what way are all these nations "appeasing" the U.S.? Do you really believe that the Yankees swing such a big stick in the rest of the First World, let alone the Third World, that Germany and France are simply rolling over out of fear of the GOP War Machine? Funny, I'd think that if their goal really was "appeasement", that they would have caved two months ago, and that George would have had his Iraq resolution way back in September, when he first asked. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html)

Or do you really not remember the last two months, how we had to listen to him hammer away at his point, day after day, and listen to every other nation in the world, besides Israel, tell him, politely, to go soak his head? Even Tony Blair took a while to muster up enough support before he was able to pick up his bookbag and go stand on Dubya's side of the gymnasium.

Sunday, 8 September, 2002 Blair faces rough ride over Iraq (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2244631.stm)
Tony Blair has returned from a meeting with US president George W Bush resolute on taking action over Iraq but facing mounting opposition at home.
Monday, 16 September, 2002 Blair seeks backing on Iraq (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2261091.stm)
Tony Blair is stepping up efforts to persuade MPs to back him over Iraq, amid claims he faces a backbench rebellion against possible military action.
Tuesday, 24 September, 2002 Blair outlines Iraq evidence (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2277352.stm)Prime Minister Tony Blair has warned of the urgent need to act after the publication of the UK's long awaited dossier of evidence against Iraq.
Wednesday, 25 September, 2002 Blair takes stock of Iraq rebels (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2279846.stm)UK Prime Minister Tony Blair is taking stock of the battle he faces to unite his own party before committing Britain to any war against Iraq after a Commons rebellion by 53 Labour MPs.
Wednesday, 9 October, 2002 Tories back Blair on Iraq (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2314697.stm)
Tony Blair's stance on Iraq will be backed by the Tories while it remains in the national interest, Conservative foreign affairs spokesman Michael Ancram has said. Oh, wait, I know--the nations of the world are all caving now because they see that the GOP won big in Tuesday's election, so they "know" that war is "inevitable", and they're anxious to be on the winning side, is that it? Right, like I believe that somebody like Gerhard Schroeder, who's been up on his hind legs about this all fall, and who's barely been speaking to George ever since the end of September, is suddenly gonna roll over and beg for his belly to be tickled, just because there are a few more Republican senators in the Capitol... :rolleyes: I mean, come on, he's a pro, he knows that in politics, nothing is ever a lock.

elucidator

11-09-2002, 11:22 AM

Our Leader was talking out of both sides of his mouth. On the one mouth, he is consulting with the UN, rallying support, and appeasing one bunch of critics with an utterly empty display of respect. At the same time, often in the same breath, he makes it clear that if he doesn't get his way, he's talking his ball and bat and going to bash in Saddam bin Laden's head anyway.

At least we will have that threat out of the way, no need to worry about drone aircraft armed with nuclear anthrax flying ten thousand miles to attack us. Not any more!

CarnalK

11-09-2002, 11:36 AM

"Point of fact, it's never been shown that an innocent person in Illinois or Texas has ever been actually executed "

Only if you choose to be blind:
http://www.dailyhowler.com./dh110602.shtml

And what do you know, killing an innocent man apparently helped Shrub's campaign. It sure seems to me that he enjoys playing a homicidal Cool Hand Luke on the world stage.

Sam Stone

11-09-2002, 12:46 PM

You know, when Bush first started talking about Iraq, the left (including most Democrats on this board) were screaming at him about unilateralism. They said he needs to go to the U.N. and get approval of the Security Council. The American people agreed - a bare majority supported war without the U.N., but an overwhelming majority (78%, last poll I saw) approved of it if the Security Council agreed.

So the Bush team responds to the desires of the public, goes to the U.N., and in a drawn-out, brilliantly managed process of negotiation manages to get unanimous agreement from the Security Council. You'd think the left would be cheering him for doing the right thing.

Instead, they fall stonily silent for a few days, then start carping about the way in which the U.S. managed to get unanimous agreement. Or something. I'm not quite sure what the argument is now, except that Bush is a bad man and must never be praised for anything.

Shodan

11-09-2002, 12:56 PM

CarnalK -

Dewey may be going for the thread record for saying "stupid", but you are the undisputed champ of "Worst Cite".

I hope you are not saying that anyone who disbelieves in the innocence of the late Mr. Graham is "blind" based on the say-so of the Daily Howler.

On June 22, the Texas Board of Paroles and Pardons turned down Graham’s final appeal on a 12-5 vote—and Bush expressed his faith in their judgment.

And people complain when conservatives link to opinion pieces as if they were "evidence".

Regards,
Shodan

Dewey Cheatem Undhow

11-09-2002, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by CarnalK
And what do you know, killing an innocent man apparently helped Shrub's campaign. I don't think you can say with any degree of certainty that the Graham verdict was wrong. Facts on the Graham case (http://www.txexecutions.org/reports/222.asp).

And, as Shodan points out, the Daily Howler is hardly an objective source.

CarnalK

11-09-2002, 04:32 PM

"but you are the undisputed champ of "Worst Cite". "

Wow, with one shot I'm the champ. I am humbled. As for not-objective I don't get a partisan feel off the howler, unless it is us vs the press corp, YMMV. (note: if I remember correctly I found that site from a december post, so at least one R. supportor gets value out of it :) )

I thought it was common knowledge the level of defense poor people facing the death penalty got but if you need it spelled out:

Southern Center for Human Rights (http://www.schr.org/news/news_texasfairness.htm)
Indyweek (http://www.indyweek.com/durham/2001-07-18/triangles.html)
From Dewey's own link:
"In Graham's case, there was no confession or physical evidence, and circumstantial evidence was weak, so the prosecutors had to base most of their case on Bernadine Skillern's testimony. "
Which was contradicted by two other eye-witnesses that were not called to the stand. But he was probably guilty, right?

If pretending that they were all guilty helps you sleep at night then knock yourself out (please).

december

11-09-2002, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by CarnalK (note: if I remember correctly I found that site from a december post, so at least one R. supportor gets value out of it :) )I like The Daily Howler a lot. Bob Somerby is a smart, funny liberal (and was a Harvard roommate of Al Gore and Tommy Lee Jones.)

However, Somerby didn't say that that Graham was innocent. His site is really about criticizing media coverage. So, your cite didn't even claim to prove your allegation.

elucidator

11-09-2002, 05:16 PM

Let me see if I got you right here, Sam. Our Leader goes to the UN, says basicly, if you wussies dont go with me on this, I go anyway. And anybody who doesn't go along can depend that they are on the wrong side of the US from here on out.

Speak softly, and if we figure you need the stick, we'll hit you with it.

Theres the alternative interpretation: that the UN Security Council voted for inspections trying to prevent war, not as a means of declaring their hearty support for a bit of international carnage. They were very careful to make sure that there was no automatic, hair trigger, one slip and bang.

Our Leader, of course, was pressing for exactly that.

Nonetheless, he still makes it clear that the US retains the "right" to go ahead regardless.

So what is it you were expecting us to cheer about? That he sure taught those UN wussies a lesson? That my country swaggers around the international arena? Machismo is fine, I guess, if you like that sort of thing, and lives aren't at stake. But they are.

bizzwire

11-09-2002, 07:07 PM

Getting back to the OP......

Chumpsky, you carry on as if Iraq is some sort of bespectacled 98-pound weakling who keeps getting picked on by the class bully. Iraq initiated an unprovoked attack on Kuwait. Its army killed, raped and looted. When met with miltary resistance, they fled after first setting Kuwaiti oil fields ablaze, making them, in my mind at least, first-class scumbags.

They started a war, and they lost.

The members of the security council, either too afraid of the consequences of crossing the U.S. (perhaps recalling the case of Yemen voting against the first Gulf War, and the consequent punishment of the
tiny, impoverished country), or were happy to go along, after being assured that they would get their piece of the pie when Iraq is carved up.

Usually, when you start a war and lose, "to the victor goes the spoils."
There was ample opportunity to press the war into Baghdad. This did not happen, Iraq was not "carved up," and Saddam Hussein remains in power. While you will doubtless claim that this was all part of a western plot, the fact remains that the Iraq drew the first blood, yet the only price they had to pay for their failed belligerence is to demonstrably disarm. They got off pretty easy, if you want my opinion.

I mean what would you recommend they get for their actions, fire-starting merit badges?

clairobscur

11-09-2002, 07:14 PM

Originally posted by elucidator
Theres the alternative interpretation: that the UN Security Council voted for inspections trying to prevent war, not as a means of declaring their hearty support for a bit of international carnage. They were very careful to make sure that there was no automatic, hair trigger, one slip and bang.

That was the whole point of the negociations : that the resolution wouldn't allow the US to attack Irak if it didn't comply with the inspections and that a new decision of the security council would be needed to use force against Irak if it appeared not to comply. That's also the content of the resolution, so Russia and France got it their way, and I'm really not sure why you guys are discussing about Bush "success" and the UNSC compliance on this issue. The US had to accept to water down their resolution according to the wishes of the other members of the council to get it voted.

I don't know if Bush administration is presenting this vote as a success of the american diplomacy, but here it's essentially considered as a failure. A failure to gather any support for their original resolution and for their hard line stance.

Sam Stone

11-09-2002, 08:15 PM

Of course the French are going to spin it that way. Of course, the resolution was written in such a way that it would give the French and Russians cover to say that they got what they wanted, and for the Americans to say the same. That's the way diplomacy works.

The fact is, the language of the resolution has everything the Bush Administration wanted, from hard deadlines, no compromises, 'out-of-country' interviews, the ability to inspect the 'palaces', AND the specific wording that would find Baghdad in 'Material Breech' of the resolution if they do not agree to all conditions. Those words are important, because they are generally seen as a trigger to allow military force. And I don't believe Bush left the power to declare military force with the Security Council - he promised to 'consult' with them first.
'

CarnalK

11-09-2002, 08:39 PM

december said "However, Somerby didn't say that that Graham was innocent. His site is really about criticizing media coverage. So, your cite didn't even claim to prove your allegation."

I'll certainly concede that, I posted it hastily as I happened to read it a mere 1/2 hour before opening this thread. I suppose I just find it hard to fathom that anyone believes all the injections on Bush's watch were justified. Hope springs eternal I guess.

Back to the OP:
""Around the world," according to the BBC is the U.S., U.K., France and Israel. "
Chumpsky sort of misrepresented the article. It has favourable quotes from more than that. From the article:

European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana

"The views of the European Union are fully reflected in this text, particularly the key objective of the EU, namely vigorously to address the disarmament of Iraq and to do so within the framework of the UN Security Council.

The OP's target is slightly off. Since you are being fooled by US spin that this is an unadulterated victory you feel you must attack it. Leaders from around the world are expressing support, the ones who voted for it can hardly condemn it.

It seems to me that this resolution gets the ball rolling on weapons inspections without giving a green light to automatic bombing.

UN text so every one knows what we're talking about:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/comp/articleshow?art_id=27687676

elucidator

11-09-2002, 09:02 PM

Not so, Sam. The promise to consult is just that, a promise to consult. It carries no more weight than that. Bush has stated again and again, if he doesn't get what he wants, America "and its friends" (whoever the hell they are) will do it anyway. And what the hell is a "material breach" anyway?

And here the dreadful question nobody wants to ask: what if Saddam bin Laden has disposed of his weapons. He can always make them again later, everybody knows that. Why shouldn't he? Can you imagine the propaganda victory if he does, in fact, allow the inspectors to look anywhere they want and they find nothing!

Impossible, we are firmly assured. Never happen. But what if it does? We look like the biggest bunch of rabid war mongering maniacs ever. Who then is seen as the biggest threat to world peace? What could possibly fit Saddams dreams better? He has nothing to lose he cant replace. Why shouldn't he?

Not possible. The Japanese cant sail 10,000 miles undetected. Besides, thier pilots are all near sighted and bandy legged, and they wouldn't dare. Not possible.

Sam Stone

11-09-2002, 09:08 PM

Lemur866

11-09-2002, 09:11 PM

So you're in favor of regime change then, Elucidator?

Cause that's what it sounds like. Let's face facts. The problem is Saddam Hussein himself. As long as he remains dictator of Iraq he retains the ability to use Iraq's wealth to cause trouble. Dictators with ready cash are going to be more and more of a problem for the free world. So what are we going to do about it? Compare the US to Nazi Germany, like our hysterical friend Chumpsky? Or maybe, just maybe, we can agree that dictatorships are a problem. That, I don't know, it would be better if people didn't have to live under dictatorships. And that the mere presence of dictatorships is a threat to peace.

elucidator

11-09-2002, 09:48 PM

I am indeed in favor of a regime change. I simply propose we start with the most powerful country in the world. By a happy coincidence, we are empowered to do exactly that.

We do not now, nor have we ever given a rats ass about "dictatorship". What we care about is stability, Instability makes investment difficult, upsets trade, makes our spreadsheets unpredictable.

We dont give a shit about "human rights", unless that should interfere with the sacred entreprenuerial spirit, the inviolable right of the people to make our tennis shoes. Decent lives and wages for our own people? Well, ok, as long as that doesn't get in the way of "competetiveness". Otherwise, screw you, my fellow Americans, Vietnamese are cheaper, Mexicans don't care what kind of poisonous crap we dump in thier water. After all, we've already taken a dump in thier water before it even becomes thier water!

jshore

11-09-2002, 10:53 PM

Okay, I'm not up enough on the latest news to weigh in on the U.N. resolution and I really don't feel like arguing whether or not Bush is equivalent to Hannibel Lector (because I hate having to agree with the likes of Sam Stone and D.C.U., but I can't let this side argument go unrebutted....

Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow But I understand there is a lack of certainty at play. The fact that 13 souls were released raises the possibility, however remote, that there were other poor souls who went overlooked. Bush's words were overstatement, in that we can never know with 100% metaphysical certainty that a prisoner committed the crime for which he was incarcerated. But what can be said is that death penalty cases get reviewed with greater appellate scrutiny than other types of cases, and that scrutiny gives us an acceptable level of certainty in the eventual outcome.

Remote possibility? What are you talking about?!? Some of those folk in Illinois were only exonerated after some journalism class took up their cases as a class project. The guy in Texas who was the subject of the documentary "Thin Blue Line" was probably only released because of the interest in his case generated from the movie. Before that, most of the appeals on these case were going nowhere! It takes naivety to the extreme to believe that all the cases of people sentenced wrongly to death have been prevented given the random way in which so many have been uncovered before the ultimate sanction was carried out!

And, to say noone proven to be innocent has ever been put to death is complete tautology because usually the only evidence people who argue this seem willing to accept as proving this is evidence that causes them to be exonerated and thus not put to death. How convenient!

There was an interesting case in Virginia where someone was put to death a few years ago where there were lots of questions about guilt. Now, with modern DNA techniques, a prime piece of physical evidence could be tested to see who was right. Death penalty opponents have pointed out that this is an ideal case to test the "noone innocent ever gets executed" theory. Alas, the state refuses to do the test or to release the evidence for testing. Apparently, they just don't want to know!

Bush's statement wasn't just an overstatement, it was an overstatement of confidence bordering on either idiocy or extreme dishonesty! This doesn't make him "bloodthirsty" in my mind but it does cause one to question his character and judgement!

Testy

11-09-2002, 11:14 PM

Chumpsky

11-09-2002, 11:15 PM

Originally posted by Sam Stone
You know, when Bush first started talking about Iraq, the left (including most Democrats on this board) were screaming at him about unilateralism. They said he needs to go to the U.N. and get approval of the Security Council. The American people agreed - a bare majority supported war without the U.N., but an overwhelming majority (78%, last poll I saw) approved of it if the Security Council agreed.I don't know what polls you are looking at. From what I have been following in the press, such as it is, anywhere from 30-40% is against the war regardless of the U.N. rubber stamp. The remaining 60-70% are split between those who want to go to war no matter what, and those who will support the war with the U.N. blessing.

Thus the importance of the U.N. resolution.

This resolution was absolutely necessary for the U.S. war. Without it, support for the war would have been far below 50%. As it is, well, we will have to see.

I have never had any illusions about "unilateralism." The U.S. has always been unilateralist, only seeking a U.N. blessing when it needs to cast its foreign policy in a moral glow. Notice how, now, when they talk about attacking Iraq it is "the world," not the U.S. who is "demanding Iraq give up its weapons of mass destruction," begging the question of whether or not they have any.

You are quite right about the left and its cries for multi-lateralism, which I thought was quite foolish. The U.S. has always been able to get enough states behind when it needed to, by threats, bribery, extortion, or whatever means it had at its disposal. There was never any real doubt that Bush would be able to get his U.N. resolution. By framing the debate around whether or not the U.S. should go to the U.N., many on the left lost the debate before it even started, what there was of it.

Now, if Iraq makes the slightest misstep, the U.S. will use it as an excuse to launch a war. There seems to be no way out of it, and U.S. politicians and pundits will praise their glorious leader for acting "multi-laterally" and "making the U.N. relevant again." This is truly Orwellian, since the U.N. was formed in the first place in order to prevent aggressive wars, not to give powerful states a cover to start wars.

Also, it is quite clear that this resolution was crafted so as to make it impossible for Iraq to comply. The intention is to get the resolution passed, and then have Iraq refuse to comply, justifying the invasion. The same trick was used by NATO with the Rambouillet Accords, in order to justify bombing Serbia. In that sickenging little adventure, Serbia agreed to every point in the accords, except one, that "NATO" (meaning the U.S.) would have the right to enter any part of Serbia at will, thus destroying their sovereignty. The same language was used in the initial drafts of the resolution. Some of this language has been removed, but there still remain some requirements that I don't think any country would agree to, such as the right of member states to remove scientists and their families from Iraq for questioning.

The administration is seizing upon the increased fear and militarization of society to launch its program of world-wide domination. The New American Century (http://www.newamericancentury.org/index.html) envisaged by Bush's handlers, and welcomed by the Washington Consensus, is at the heart of the new and improved, more aggressive imperialism. The goal, euphemistically, is "preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles," in other words, total domination.

George Orwell wrote, in 1984, "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--for
ever." The future is now.

Sam Stone

11-09-2002, 11:20 PM

I agree with Jshore completely. The math is hard to refuse - if 11 essentially random incidents revealed innocent people on death row, then it is highly likely that some innocent people have been executed.

I'm also against the death penalty. It doesn't make society safer. That's the only possible moral justification for it. Revenge doesn't cut it with me - I like to think that society is enlightened enough that we can afford to simply isolate dangerous people away from us rather than kill them.

Now, if you could show that capital punishment measurably lowered the murder rate, you could convince me otherwise. But I don't know of any.

CyberPundit

11-10-2002, 12:32 AM

"The fact is, the language of the resolution has everything the Bush Administration wanted..."
Hardly. Remember all the talk about "coercive inspections" and about large numbers of armed escorts sent with the inspectors. That's all gone. And a few months ago that was considered a moderate proposal coming from the Carnegie Endowment. At that time Cheney was attacking the very idea of inspections.

The fact is that the administration has moved a long way from its rhetoric a few months ago. I doubt that Rumsfeld,Wolfowitz et al are pleased with the outcome. OTOH it has been a big victory for Powell.

Dewey Cheatem Undhow

11-10-2002, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by CarnalK
From Dewey's own link:
"In Graham's case, there was no confession or physical evidence, and circumstantial evidence was weak, so the prosecutors had to base most of their case on Bernadine Skillern's testimony. "
Which was contradicted by two other eye-witnesses that were not called to the stand. But he was probably guilty, right?[/B]Did you stop reading the article at that quote, or did you continue on?

Graham offered no alibi for where he was that night. Skillern picked Graham out of a lineup. Skillern has consistently maintained that she saw Graham.

The johnny-come-lately witnessess -- one of whom was Graham's wife -- were given the opportunity to testify before a judge as part of the appeal process; their testimony was contradictory, and the judge found them not credible.

Plus, there is additional evidence that has arisen in favor of the verdict:Harris County prosecutors filed an affidavit signed by the bailiff who escorted Graham from the courtroom after his death sentence, who heard him say, "Next time, I'm not going to leave any witnesses." A prosecutor filed an affidavit stating that the bailiff related the comment to him within minutes of the time it was allegedly made. It seems to me perfectly fair to look at new evidence of guilt in addition to new evidence of innocence if you're going to look at new evidence at all.

And just to bring this full circle back around to Bush, let's note that Texas law only allows one 30-day stay to be given by the governor per death row inmate. Ann Richards, Bush's predecessor in the governor's mansion, gave such a stay to Graham in 1993. Thus, there is literally nothing Bush could have done to stop the execution even if he had wanted to.

jshore: I'll need a cite for your Virginia example.

Sam: You and I disagree on this point. I think the criminal justice system is about more than just deterrence. That's probably too much of a hijack to get into, I suppose.

CarnalK

11-10-2002, 09:20 AM

"The johnny-come-lately witnessess -- one of whom was Graham's wife -- were given the opportunity to testify before a judge as part of the appeal process; their testimony was contradictory, and the judge found them not credible. "

Actually it looks like you are doing some selective reading and mental editting. The witnesses you talk about came forward later to try and give an alibi, they never claimed to be eye witnesses to the crime.

"Graham offered no alibi for where he was that night. Skillern picked Graham out of a lineup. Skillern has consistently maintained that she saw Graham. "

Yes one eye witness, no matter how many ways you say it.

Plus, there is additional evidence that has arisen in favor of the verdict:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harris County prosecutors filed an affidavit signed by the bailiff who escorted Graham from the courtroom after his death sentence, who heard him say, "Next time, I'm not going to leave any witnesses." A prosecutor filed an affidavit stating that the bailiff related the comment to him within minutes of the time it was allegedly made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are joking right? You must really want to believe. A sworn affidavit of a hear-say death bed confession? Pathetic.

Maybe he was guilty but we'll never know because he didn't get a fair trial and now he is dead. Bush's confidence in the system shows gross ignorance, real or feigned.

Fang

11-10-2002, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by Chumpsky
I don't know what polls you are looking at. From what I have been following in the press, such as it is, anywhere from 30-40% is against the war regardless of the U.N. rubber stamp. The remaining 60-70% are split between those who want to go to war no matter what, and those who will support the war with the U.N. blessing.

Jeez, one would have thought you might want to do a little research before making so foolish a statement. Just do me a favor and reconcile that with a recent poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr021030.asp), where 79% support invading Iraq with UN support, and 58% support invading iraq without UN support. Not that public opinion proves a cause right or wrong, but you really shouldn't change the facts to fit your precious theory.

On another note, it's interesting to see ultra-leftists getting all huffy about "appeasement"...

elucidator

11-10-2002, 09:28 PM

Your poll is conclusive proof that Lincoln was right.

We've been had. Conned, cozened, duped, flim-flammed. Lied to in bushel baskets. Its the same old crapola that always works, time after time after time. Start pounding the drums, and the brains go right out the window.

Want a little trip down memory lane? Go look up Operation Urgent Fury, the invasion of Grenada. Iraq pales in comparison to this snow job, it was a used car salesmans wet dream.

Grenada was taken over by Marxist revolutionaries, crack squads of Cuban elite commandos were disguising themselves as bulldozer drivers and building airfield, extending runways so that Soviet NUCLEAR bombers could land and take off with thier NUCLEAR weapons. The threat is clear and present, we must invade at once, our nation is in peril, etc. etc.

It was all hogwash. Utter, unmitigated hogwash, and we bought it hook, line, and sinker.

Our Leader stood in front of you and told you half-truths, innuendos, and some out right unvarnished lies. And it worked, it always does. The media whores solemnly purveyed this steaming kettle of bullshit like it was the Gospel.

Poof! Osama. Gone. Enron. Gone. The rampant plundering by some of the biggest names in Greed. Never happened.

And tomorrow? They're gonna do it to you again.

Sam Stone

11-10-2002, 09:55 PM

elucidator: You have a cite showing that the Cuban military WASN'T involved?

Are you suggesting that Grenada wasn't taken over by Marxist revolutionaries? Every description of Bernard Coard I've ever seen described him as a hard-line Marxist. And it was a bloody coup, not a democratic election.

Perhaps you could give me another reason why they were building a 15,000 ft runway?

If there were no Cuban soldiers on the island, perhaps you could explain why 1,200 Marines needed to call in almost 7,000 reinforcements to defeat the 'construction workers'?

By the way, that invasion was cheered by the people of Grenada. Only 19 Americans, and less than 100 Cubans and Grenadan military were killed. And the result was that an unfriendly, despotic regime was replaced by democracy. Grenada was a great success story.

jshore

11-10-2002, 10:02 PM

Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow
jshore: I'll need a cite for your Virginia example.

I originally saw the story on what was apparently a PBS documentary but that I saw on Danish TV when I was visiting Denmark in the summer of 2000. [The documentary was basically on how people were being found to be almost certainly innocent based on DNA testing (in the sense that the major piece of physical evidence was found not to incriminate them) but, in some cases, were still having trouble getting retrials or released. In some cases, they were on death row; in some cases not. It was very difficult to explain to the two Danish friends I watched it with what the mentality was in the U.S. that would allow this to happen without people being up-in-arms...But, I tried.]

At any rate, here is a link that I found to the story. I've only had a chance to glance at it, but it sounds like the case that I had heard about: http://www.insideout.org/documentaries/dna/thestories2.asp

Chumpsky

11-11-2002, 02:29 AM

Originally posted by Fang

Jeez, one would have thought you might want to do a little research before making so foolish a statement. Just do me a favor and reconcile that with a recent poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr021030.asp), where 79% support invading Iraq with UN support, and 58% support invading iraq without UN support. Not that public opinion proves a cause right or wrong, but you really shouldn't change the facts to fit your precious theory.

On another note, it's interesting to see ultra-leftists getting all huffy about "appeasement"... Why is that? I don't think aggression should be appeased. Aggression is the most serious crime you can commit, according to the Nuremburg Tribunal, a judgement I agree with. We can debate about the proper response to aggression, but at the very least we have an obligation to not support it. Germany, for example, should not have been granted permission to invade Czechoslovakia, even though its claims to the Sudetenland had much more validity than do the U.S. claims about Iraq.

As for the polls, of course, it depends very much how the questions are asked and in what context. For example, in this poll (http://www.mondotimes.com/poll/archive/invadeiraq.html), asking if the U.S. should invade Iraq, 51% said yes, and 41% said no. Another poll (http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm) shows 64% favor military action in Iraq, but 63% also saying that the U.N. should be given more time. For another example, check out this ABCNews poll (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/iraq_poll021007.html), in which it is claimed that 44% believe that we should hold off on military action and give diplomacy a try, thus completely repudiating Bush's policy of avoiding diplomacy at all costs, and doing everything possible to start a war. Notice, though, how leading the questions asked are. For example, one of the questions is, "What is more important: removing Saddam, disarming Iraq or tracking down al Queda." Notice the hidden assumption there that we have a right to remove Saddam.

Imagine, if you will, a set of poll questions that asked the following?
1. Do you believe Bush is being honest with the American people regarding Iraq, given the recent history of the administration in prevaracation and dissembling?

2. Do you believe the U.S. should invade Iraq, given that Iraq poses no threat to the U.S.?

3. Do you believe that the U.S. should violate every norm of international law going back to the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/westphal.htm) declaring that all states have equal rights?

etc. You get the picture. The national polls that are being conducted are mostly about eliciting support for war, and buttressing the claims of the administration. Every society seems to have its commissars...

istara

11-11-2002, 02:43 AM

It's very easy to argue dispassionately about the rightness or wrongness of waging war in some foreign clime when you don't know anyone personally there.

It's a hell of a lot harder when you have Iraqi friends with innocent and young families back in Iraq.

Sure - I would like to see them delivered from what is in many ways a "reign of terror." I would love to see a "rehabilitated" Baghdad that could regain its former glory as a true world city and trading centre. The country is rich in oils, mineral wealth, for thousands of years it has been a city of culture and learning and internationalism.

But I would like to see every single other method exhausted before the bombs drop down and kill the very children whose lives they are allegedly trying to improve. It may be that eventually this will be a necessary sacrifice for the greater good. But right now I don't believe that it is necessary, and I do believe that the pro-war lobby have other motives than concern for suffering Iraqi people, or increased regional instability/conflict in whatever form that might take. These are motives - and valid ones - but they're certainly not the only motives (or even the main ones) behind what is going on with Bush and Blair.

Chumpsky

11-11-2002, 02:53 AM

"Statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception."

The preceeding was written by Mark Twain almost a century ago, in his lament over U.S. imperialism's murderous attack on the Phillipines. It could have been written yesterday.

Originally posted by elucidator
We've been had. Conned, cozened, duped, flim-flammed. Lied to in bushel baskets. Its the same old crapola that always works, time after time after time. Start pounding the drums, and the brains go right out the window.

Want a little trip down memory lane? Go look up Operation Urgent Fury, the invasion of Grenada. Iraq pales in comparison to this snow job, it was a used car salesmans wet dream.You are quite right to bring up this example of propaganda being used to rile up the populace to support some war or another. In fact, though, the record of deceit by the U.S. state is a long and sordid one.

The first large-scale propaganda campaign was initiated by Wilson, shortly after he was elected in 1912. He ran on a pacifist platform, with the slogan "Peace Without Victory." Of course, he was simply lying about that, and dearly wanted to get the U.S. involved in the capitalist war in Europe. He formed the first and only official propaganda agency, The Committee on Public Information it was called (nice Orwellian title), also known as the Creel Commission. The purpose of the committee was to turn the pacifist American populace into a bunch of raving anti-German lunatics. It worked brilliantly. Within months, the country was involved in the War to End all Wars.

Propaganda has been refined over the years to near-perfection. It is to the point where the majority of Americans can believe that a country that has been ravaged by two major wars in 20 years, and has been suffering under the most strict economic sanctions in history can pose a threat to the most dominant military that has ever existed. That is quite an accomplishment.

The lies have always flowed from the lips of U.S. leaders, from lies about the blowing up of the Battleship Maine to justify entry into the ludicrously titled "Spanish American War," to lies about Hun atrocities to justify entry into WWI, to lies about "communists" infiltrating Latin American governments to justify overthrowing the democracies of Guatemala and Chile, to lies about Libyan involvement in the bombing of a German discotheque to justify bombing Libya, and on and on. Of course, the all-time record holder for the amount of lies told has to be Vietnam. Never have so many leaders poured forth so many lies. Yet, the press ate it up, repeating every idiotic lie coming out of the White House as gospel.

The same is true today. The administration repeats lie after lie. If it isn't Cheney claiming Iraq kicked out inspectors in 1998, it is Rumsfeld claiming that the patrolling of "no-fly zones" is according to a U.N. mandate, or it is Condoleeza Rice and Bush claiming that the IAEA stated that Iraq could have a viable nuclear weapon in six months, and on and on it goes. And every word is repeated by the press, unchallenged and unquestioned, as the vicious, lying murderous bastards that call themselves our leaders lead us into war.

"I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land."
-Mark Twain

Chumpsky

11-11-2002, 03:12 AM

Originally posted by bizzwire
Chumpsky, you carry on as if Iraq is some sort of bespectacled 98-pound weakling who keeps getting picked on by the class bully. Iraq initiated an unprovoked attack on Kuwait. Its army killed, raped and looted. When met with miltary resistance, they fled after first setting Kuwaiti oil fields ablaze, making them, in my mind at least, first-class scumbags.Unprovoked? Well, that is debatable. If you accept the premises of Bush, then Iraq had every right to invade Kuwait. What is not debatable, however, is that Iraq explicitely obtained permission from the U.S. to invade Iraq. Also, most of the stories you heard about Iraqi atrocities in Kuwait were just made up. That isn't to say that what Iraq did wasn't a crime. Obviously it was a crime, one that almost equalled the crime that the U.S. committed in Panama only a few months earlier. However, tales of Iraqi atrocities were greatly exaggerated, and in some cases simply made up, such as the tale of babies being taken out of incubators that was used to great effect by Bush, the congress and the pundits.
There was ample opportunity to press the war into Baghdad. This did not happen, Iraq was not "carved up," and Saddam Hussein remains in power.According to U.S. desires, or very near their desires. The State Department spokesman at the New York Times, Thomas Friedman actually described the "best of all possible worlds," namely an "iron-fisted dictator who would rule Iraq exactly the way Saddam did," but without Saddam. They wanted the iron fist, and they had to make due with Saddam. Now they see an opportunity to have "Saddam-ism without Saddam" to borrow an old Reaganite term.While you will doubtless claim that this was all part of a western plot, the fact remains that the Iraq drew the first blood, yet the only price they had to pay for their failed belligerence is to demonstrably disarm. They got off pretty easy, if you want my opinion. If turning the most advanced and wealthy Arab country into a ruins is getting off easily, I suppose you are right. If the destruction of water sanitation facilities, electrical power plants, etc., and then the prohibition against importing materials to build them is getting off easily, then you are right. If a rapid increase in birth deformities resulting from the use of depleted uranium is getting off easily, then you are right. If a doubling of the death rate for children under 5 is getting off easily, then you are right. If at least 1/2 million dead children is getting off easily, then you are right.

Oh, but perhaps you are talking about the consequences for Saddam himself? In that case, you are correct. The sanctions have had no effect on Saddam's grip on power, and in fact increased it. It is only the people of Iraq who have suffered. And, now they will suffer even more.

Chumpsky

11-11-2002, 04:19 AM

Originally posted by Sam Stone
Are you suggesting that Grenada wasn't taken over by Marxist revolutionaries? Every description of Bernard Coard I've ever seen described him as a hard-line Marxist. And it was a bloody coup, not a democratic election.Coups against ruthless, bload-soaked dictatorships are generally not carried off through democratic elections. In fact, it is very difficult to have elections at all when you live in a dictatorship like the one Grenada had under Gairy.

And, actually, Bishop did some very good things for Grenada. After the 1979 coup, Bishop installed a revolutionary government that went to work organizing workers' councils and creating a very participatory government. He worked to develop the island, and received aid mainly from Cuba and the Soviet Union, and later the Sandinistas of Nicaragua. One of the chief efforts of Bishop was the construction of an airplane runway in order to further tourism for the nation.

Of course, the justifications given by the U.S. for invading Grenada were ludicrous. What was the real reason for invading a country of 100,000 people? Well, there was a very real threat that Grenada would become a good example. They were well on their way to creating a very progressive society. This is a very dangerous threat to U.S. imperialism, as it can spread to other countries. If people see that a small country like Grenada can work outside of the U.S. system to build its society on socialistic ideals, they could be motivated to take things into their own hands, and start to do the same in their own country, using the wealth of their countries to benefit the citizens, as opposed to Wall Street.
By the way, that invasion was cheered by the people of Grenada. Only 19 Americans, and less than 100 Cubans and Grenadan military were killed. And the result was that an unfriendly, despotic regime was replaced by democracy. Grenada was a great success story. You are right that 19 Americans died during the glorious conquest of Grenada, when 6,000 elite troops succeeded in overcoming the resistance of several dozen Cubans and some Grenadan militiamen, winning 8,000 medals of honor for their bravery.

You have your timing wrong, though. The unwanted despot was removed in 1979.

rampisad

11-11-2002, 05:12 AM

Originally posted by Lemur866
So what are we going to do about it? Compare the US to Nazi Germany, like our hysterical friend Chumpsky?

Actually, I don't think Chumpsky compares the US to Nazi Germany, because he admires the latter far too much. I think he is saying that the cause of all this trouble is the same in both cases - it's those stinking Jews again. Never seem to be able to learn their place!

elucidator

11-11-2002, 06:49 AM

rampisand: what an utterly contemptible bit of drivel. I have a response to Sam, but I won't insult him by placing on the same page.

hawthorne

11-11-2002, 07:04 AM

I'll help fill up the page then. I'd still like an answer to
What action would have made you reconsider their motives?

rampisad

11-11-2002, 07:27 AM

since elucidator thinks that an insult is a valid reply, I'm out of here, but not before letting Chumpsky, with his own words, justify my original comment....
Saddam was [sic] a brutal Fascist, but like some Fascists he did invest in the country.
Terrorism was used extensively by the Zionists before Israel achieved independence.
The U.S./Israeli alliance stands alone in the world in opposing this solution.
The only obstacle to a peaceful settlement is the U.S./Israel.
Israeli Zionists justify their supreme injustice by appeal to a holy book written a few thousand years ago by a bunch of priests.
If Israel/U.S. (at this point Israel is little more than a U.S. military base) were to seek a just peace, Israel would become much more safe.
Furthermore, Israel has never been attacked since 1948 (and even that is murky).

It's those damn Jews again, never knowing their place.

Duck Duck Goose

11-11-2002, 08:59 AM

I don't think Chumpsky compares the US to Nazi Germany, because he admires the latter far too much. Boy, I'd sure like to see a cite where Chumpsky ever said he particularly admired Nazi Germany. Or did I miss something?

smiling bandit

11-11-2002, 11:36 AM

The first large-scale propaganda campaign was initiated by Wilson, shortly after he was elected in 1912. He ran on a pacifist platform, with the slogan "Peace Without Victory." Of course, he was simply lying about that, and dearly wanted to get the U.S. involved in the capitalist war in Europe.

History student here: My jaw is dropping off of my face at the amount of misinformation carried in this post.

1) Even without trying to define "first large-scale propaganda campaign" I can say this is utter hogwash.

2) Wilson did run on an anti-war platform, but was hardly intending to go all out for the war. he was not pleased, but saw no other way to break the stalemate in Europe from Kaiser WIlhelm's ahggression. Added to the fact of relative French and British innocence, he felt he had no other choice. Whther he made his mind to go to war by the election or not is a matter of debate.

3) "Dearly Wanted", my Burro

4) "Capitalist War?" Imperialist, maybe, given Austria's territorial and political ambitions over Serbia sort of started it, (along with everything else). Capitalism was not, in anyway, shape or form, a factor in the "Great War". In fact, America was doing just fine with Capitalist endouvers before the war, and did not need any help. Besides, what would anybody get out of it?

5) Wilson, as you may now, was one of the big promoters of the League of Nations, which he hoped would be key to stopping another such conflict. He also pushed for relatively light German punishment; hardly the thing one expects from a "competitor" nation.

6) Honestly, Chumpsy at least try to see the world in more ways than the simplistic assumption that anyone powerful must by definition, be evil. (Although I suppose that's too much to expect from someone who named themself after Nome Chompsky.)

El_Kabong

11-11-2002, 02:09 PM

Man, what a mess. Is Chumpsky the leftist december, or what? Geez, count the off-the-wall assumptions that ya gotta wade through even before getting to a point worth debating.

The members of the security council, either too afraid of the consequences of crossing the U.S. (perhaps recalling the case of Yemen voting against the first Gulf War, and the consequent punishment of the tiny, impoverished country), or were happy to go along, after being assured that they would get their piece of the pie when Iraq is carved up. Other goodies being handed out to the sufficiently servile were passes on monstrous crimes, such as the terror war Russia is waging in Chechnya, and the ongoing repression of dissidents in China, etc.

and

Regarding the carving up of Iraq, I mean this is no secret. If you have been following this issue at all, you should know that a main sticking point with France and Russia was the large contracts the two countries had with Iraq to develop its oil fields once the sanctions are lifted. Furthermore, Iraq is indebted to Russia for some $8 billion, I think. In order to get the two countries to go along with the U.S. war, the U.S. had to promise them a piece of the pie.

Stirring rhetoric; too bad it strikes me as utterly empty posturing. Please show by cite exactly how the US intends to "carve up" Iraq (by which I presume you mean that different parts of the country are to be occupied and administered by different nations), and what specific promises the US has made to France and Russia in this regard. Also, please show by cite that a) the US has handed out "passes" to Russia and China in return for a yes vote on the resolution on Iraq. If you can't manage the last bit, please show that the US stance re: the Russia/Chechnya conflict and/or Chinese dissidents has substantially changed in the past few months, and that such a change has something to do with obtaining a "yes" vote on the resolution just voted on by the Security Council.

Better yet, if what you really want to debate is US policy towards Russia and China, why not start a new thread entitled something like "US ignores Russian and Chinese terrorism while threatening Iraq" stating what you believe these acts are and what specific actions the US should take against them, and we'll see what holds water and what doesn't.

Oh yeah, and rampisad, what the flurking hell do you think you're talking about? 'Cause I for one haven't a clue.

smiling bandit

11-11-2002, 03:42 PM

I thought about trying to take on Rampisad, but I figured no one listening to him would ever consider my humble words understandable. Here goes:

since elucidator thinks that an insult is a valid reply, I'm out of here, but not before letting Chumpsky, with his own words, justify my original comment....

Given your lack of coherant replies, I can understand elucidator's response.

Saddam was [sic] a brutal Fascist, but like some Fascists he did invest in the country.

And this means what, exactly? Does it somehow excuse the fact he is a brutal tyrant? And lets not get into the fact that he is in no way a fascist, a fact that anyone who understands comparitive political systems (commonly Poly Sci 102 for you Collegiates) could tell you. Fascism is a very specific idea.

Terrorism was used extensively by the Zionists before Israel achieved independence.

By SOME Zionists, perhaps. Most Jews did not go out blowing up Palestinians. Moreover, what is your point?

The U.S./Israeli alliance stands alone in the world in opposing this solution.

The only obstacle to a peaceful settlement is the U.S./Israel.

???
What solution? A Palestinian State? The destruction of Israel? Jehovah coming down to smite the unbelievers? The US, you may recall, supports the idea of a Palestinian State so long as it pleadges peace with Israel.

Israeli Zionists justify their supreme injustice by appeal to a holy book written a few thousand years ago by a bunch of priests.

1) A Few of them do. In fact,. most just don't want to be killed by the giant tide of Muslim states and peoples, ofetn unfriendly, around them. In any event, where would you put your nation? In some remote backwaters of where you ancestors had never gone, or some remote backwaters where you ancestral kingdsom thrived, and you people lived for millenia.

2) Your dissmissal of the Torah is... disturbing to me. If you wish to debate its accuracy... go to another thread. Aside from which, whom do expect to write a Holy Text? God's prohets and Priests (often, the only people who could read), or an illiterate shepherd.

If Israel/U.S. (at this point Israel is little more than a U.S. military base) were to seek a just peace, Israel would become much more safe.

Israel a US Military Base? RotFLMAO!!! I think the Israeli's might have something to say about that.

Furthermore, Israel has never been attacked since 1948 (and even that is murky).

Define "attacked". In the 1967 war, Egypt blocked off Suez canal access while the UN and Britain and Franced ignored Israeli pleas for them to adhere to their treaty obligations. Neighboring Arab states began a series of offense moves and military buildup.

Now tell me, in this case, do you
A) Roll over and wait to be conquered and possibly eradicated
B) Attack first, win the initiative, and break the tightening noose?
C) Say "Hi Opal!"

You may not like it, but the Israeli's saw no choice but to fight or die.

And perhaps you forgot about a little thing called the Yom Kippur War? Perhaps Syria's mass offensive slipped past your razor-shap intellect? While Egyption forces attacked across the Suez?

http://dir.yahoo.com/Regional/Regions/Middle_East/Arts_and_Humanities/Humanities/History/By_Time_Period/20th_Century/Military_History/Arab_Israeli_Wars/

rampisad

11-13-2002, 07:42 AM

Show me quote by Chumpsky in which he critisizes Nazi Germany. I'll show you 10 where he rates the US the greatest evil ever to inflict mankind, or some similar rhetoric.

rampisad

11-13-2002, 08:00 AM

My favourite travel author, Bill Bryant, said never to try to use irony in America, they just don't understand it. I seem to have been much too ironical in my postings, so let me explain.

In my opinion, Chumpsky epitomises the "simplistic solution" approach that has taken the American intelligensia and education establishment so far to the left of the spectrum that they've actually fallen off the planet and are in free fall. The words in my last post, to which you have rightly taken exception, were direct quotes from Chumpsky's mouthings in this forum. When you read his stuff, you will see that everything wrong with the world today can be attributed to one single cause, the evil US/Israel axis. He is incapable of rational argument, using loaded words like "fascist" and "racist" in place of reason. In my case, he's really hit the wrong button, because I've spent a lot more time in South African jails for fighting apartheid than he (or any of his cohorts) have even in their puerile dreams. I'll stack my record against racism against anyone in his camp, and I'll come up smelling like roses!

So, my friend, the bottom line is I was trying to make your exact argument, but using reverse logic. Chumpsky and his ilk are no better than the holocaust-deniers, and anti-Semites without a moral bone in their bodies.

Am Yisrael Chai!