Pacifists and world politics = Saddam Husseins [Archive]

Beagle

10-26-2003, 09:55 AM

and don't mix well in my opinion.

First, I'm a hypocrite: a "libertarian hawk." Make of that what you will. But, I'm consistent on human rights. As a kid I remember learning about cynicism from the people who wanted to divert the money from the space program into welfare and those that made fun of Jimmy Carter for talking about human rights.

The argument you hear from the "whatever" is always that the US "loved Saddam Hussein in the 1980s." Yes, when he was a secular socialist alternative to the Mullahs in Iran, and hadn't started his reign of terror over all his people yet.

To be fair, his first act was to walk into the legislature and personally have people killed publicly. We should have known something was up.

But, pacifists, grow up. The whole history of the world is warfare between groups of human beings. If you prepare for war and try to avoid it, one will still be thrust upon you.

elucidator

10-26-2003, 10:28 AM

What is all this in aid of, friend Beagle? Are you going to try and suggest that the US invasion of Iraq was somehow not only morally justified, but mandatory? Will you offer us an image of America the Tyrant Slayer, rampant to bring low the Unjust?

A few names, if you will: Trujillo, Pinochet, Deim, Nhu, Rhee, Batista, Duvalier, Reza Pahlavi,... A few of many, blood-soaked tyrants all.

So when did we have our conversion, our Road to Damascus? When did we become the sworn enemy of the kind of men we, but recently, nurtured and doted upon? This would be Wonderful News! Could you specify a date in particular? This would be even better, as we might establish a holiday in celebration.

Though perhaps I mistake your point. 'Struth, I hardly see one beyond the rather pedestrian observation that pacifism is impractical in a realpolitik context. But a revulsion towards war, especially needless war, is far from "pacificism".

Earl of Sandwhich

10-26-2003, 10:38 AM

vibrotronica

10-26-2003, 10:48 AM

But, pacifists, grow up. The whole history of the world is warfare between groups of human beings. If you prepare for war and try to avoid it, one will still be thrust upon you.
Wake the fuck up. We had a war thrust upon us, but it wasn't in Iraq. My studies of history suggest that it is traditional in war to retailate against those who attack you first. Apparently, this White House didn't get the memo. They chose to attack a country that had nothing to do with the September 11 attacks. This is what I call "bad strategy."

Beagle

10-26-2003, 10:49 AM

Lest we forget that Iran declared war on the United States.

Earl of Sandwhich

10-26-2003, 10:56 AM

the Brits must not like me today, so I shall link to our own State Department (usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/iraq/iraq99h.htm)

sailor

10-26-2003, 12:03 PM

i am not a pacifist but i believe in the rule of law. I do not believe individuals or countries have the right to take justice into their own hands unilaterally. I do not believe good ends justify evil means. I believe that a world where countries are entitled to attack other countries unilaterally is a much more dangerous world than a world where ountries resolve their differences peacefully.
That is also what the USA said when it founded the UN and it signed the charter in which it promised the other member nations to abstain from attacking other countries. The USA has broken that promise and the rest of the world now know the USA is a country which will break its promises when it suits them. A country which will attack other countries when it suits them. That is not a good thing for the USA or for the world.

even sven

10-26-2003, 12:24 PM

I'm a pacifist.

My stance is a moral one, not a "how to run the world" one. It's probably a good thing that I don't run nations. But you still have to admit- if everyone just woke up every day and managed not to kill anyone, the world would be a much better place. I'm going to start with me. Everyone else can do whatever they want, but I'm not going to be a part of it and I'm not going to support it.

Somebody has to be the one to stand up for the idea that peace ought to be the goal, ought to be striven for.

And short of that, the least we can do is try not to invade and overthrow other governments who have not attacked us, especially not for spurious reasons.

The argument that "the US loved Sadam Hussain" isn't to show that he's really an okay guy. It's just another illustration of the United States making a bad choice with unexpected- or at least unacknowledged- consequences when they start mucking around with other soverign nations' governments. Almost every big enemy has been backed by the United States at some point. It just all seems to point to the idea that maybe we ought to let nations try governing themselves for a change.

Dissonance

10-26-2003, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by Beagle
The argument you hear from the "whatever" is always that the US "loved Saddam Hussein in the 1980s." Yes, when he was a secular socialist alternative to the Mullahs in Iran, and hadn't started his reign of terror over all his people yet.
Aside from the fact that Saddam had already started terrorizing his own people during the 80’s, the reason Saddam was an alternative to the Mullahs had something to do with the fact that he’d invaded Iran in 1980 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/iran-iraq.htm) and spent almost the entire decade at war with them.

Smearing pacifism by equating it with the Saddam Hussein’s of the world is pretty insulting. It’s almost as bad as characterizing lack of support for the Bush administration as treason. I’m a pacifist in my personal life, but I also have a good deal of knowledge of military history. I’d like to live in a world where nations interacted with each in a compassionate manner, but I’m also aware that this isn’t going to happen. What would be really nice is if the leaders of my country hadn’t used the post September 11th wave of patriotism to invade Iraq, which had nothing at all to do with the war on terrorism.

county

10-26-2003, 01:14 PM

I think Martin Luther King accomplished a lot with pacifism and that Indian guy, he did some stuff also, I'm pretty sure.

Guess it depends on which side of the Imago Dei you fall.

RedFury

10-26-2003, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by Beagle
The whole history of the world is warfare between groups of human beings. If you prepare for war and try to avoid it, one will still be thrust upon you.

Except for the fact that this has exactly NOTHING to do with the invasion of Iraq, you might have a point.

clayton_e

10-26-2003, 01:22 PM

What (http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/2002/usa08242002.html) about (http://www.federalunion.org.uk/world/guantanamo.shtml) the (http://www.worldrevolution.org/article/294) human (http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0804-07.htm) rights (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-may103102.asp) violations (http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/news/04152002_nw_prisoners.html) at (http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/07/week_2/10_guantanamo.html) Guantanamo (http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/features/ihavearightto/four_b/casestudy_art10.shtml) Bay (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,975668,00.html) ? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1766037.stm)

Darkhold

10-26-2003, 01:24 PM

What utter garbage. This was not a moral war to remove a tyrant this was a land grab mixed with revenge (not for the terrorist attack but for the plaintive "they tried to kill my daddy")

If we were really going after despots we have a few in central america we could be going after. If we're going after true dangers to america N Korea would be the next real threat. Why didn't we go after them?

Sadly I had hoped that we could 'win the hearts and minds' of Iraq but I notice we're just gobbling up all their resources and contracts to line our own pockets.

So we alienated the world to better ourselves and now we're trying to paint ourselves as bringers of justice while plundering a country.

And for the record I was all for the first Gulf War. I'm not some fool that chants stupid shit like 'no blood for oil' but this war had no real reason.

Governor Quinn

10-26-2003, 01:47 PM

As a cynical moderate who never made up his mind on the current conflict* and who has studied world history, I find the OP's implying that "pacifism helps dictators" foolish for one simple reason:

In my experience, most of the times that dictators have fallen from power have come internally (think of the fall of the Iron Curtain), not externally, and most of the falls that came due to external forces tend to have nothing to do with any goals of liberation.

* Do not interpret this as an opportunity to engage in secular witnessing.

Beagle

10-26-2003, 02:07 PM

If the United States spending trillions of dollars to out gun the Soviets, and hundreds of mostly unknown casualties in the effort to monitor Soviet missile and radar development, counts as "coming internally," I'd hate to see your idea of war.

Daisy Cutter

10-26-2003, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by clayton_e
What (http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/2002/usa08242002.html) about (http://www.federalunion.org.uk/world/guantanamo.shtml) the (http://www.worldrevolution.org/article/294) human (http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0804-07.htm) rights (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-may103102.asp) violations (http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/news/04152002_nw_prisoners.html) at (http://www.channel4.com/news/2003/07/week_2/10_guantanamo.html) Guantanamo (http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/features/ihavearightto/four_b/casestudy_art10.shtml) Bay (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,975668,00.html) ? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1766037.stm)

In order to address these concerns, the USA is building permament facilities down there now. I'm sure the prisoners will be much happier in their new facilities.

The only part that bugs me is why are they not building an execution chamber at gitmo as part of the new construction? Where else will we execute those found guilty and sentenced to death ? I might have to write my congressperson and complain.

Governor Quinn

10-26-2003, 02:16 PM

Whoops, sorry to not explain what I meant by "internal" and "external":

"Internal": Government toppled by its' own people.

"External": Government toppled directly by foreign power (e.g., invasion).

Obviously, a lot of the dictatorships that collasped from within had at least some sort of influence from outsiders, but there's a large difference between that and outright invasion.

Beagle

10-26-2003, 02:49 PM

Good point. I'm not advocating outright invasion of anyone. Yet.

:eek:

I am a pacifist in any meaningful sense: in my life, every minute, to the best of my ability. I'm making, IMO, an important distinction between that and ugly, messy, world affairs that you get dragged into or are historically driven into by your previous blunders.

Squink

10-26-2003, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by Daisy Cutter
In order to address these concerns, the USA is building permament facilities down there now. I'm sure the prisoners will be much happier in their new facilities. The Check Is In The Mail ? It's already a day late, probably be a dollar short as well. However it comes out, that's irrelevant to the human rights abuses currently going on at camp X-ray.

RedFury

10-26-2003, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by Daisy Cutter
In order to address these concerns, the USA is building permament facilities down there now. I'm sure the prisoners will be much happier in their new facilities.

The only part that bugs me is why are they not building an execution chamber at gitmo as part of the new construction? Where else will we execute those found guilty and sentenced to death ? I might have to write my congressperson and complain.

I've had the misfortune of reading a number of your posts on the Iraq threads and I can only conclude that you're some sort of made-up cartoonish Internet character showing the world the very worst of the Arrogant Ugly American -- right down to the offensive nick and the highly misplaced smilies. A bloodthirsty xenophobic asshole, who thinks all can be resolved by butchering a few foreigners.

Of course, if I am wrong, and you really think and act the way you've expressed yourself here, you're one load your Momma should have swallowed.

Asshole.

Beagle

10-26-2003, 03:42 PM

Count me as against executing them after a military tribunal. That's too close to exactly what I'm against. Far better than what many governments have as a judicial system, but inadequate for me. I'm not looking to set the bar as low as possible, judicially speaking. Some people hate the legal system in the United States. I am not one of them.

Keeping some of these terrorists for a long time without trial seems inevitible though. Fog of war.

Measure for Measure

10-26-2003, 04:01 PM

You're confused on this one Beagle. If you want to extract the nuance from US-Iraqi relations during the 1980s, you're going to have to do more digging.

The Anfal Campaign against the Kurds began in 1987 and peaked in 1988. It destroyed several thousand villages and killed close to 100,000 Kurds. In May 1987 Hussein became the first leader in world history to use lethal chemical weapons against his own people. Oh, then there are the mass executions. To the extent that Hussein seeked to eradicate all rural Kurdish life (though not all Kurds) the act can be considered one of genocide.

Hussein figured he had carte blanche from the US. After all, they had not delivered sanctions for previous atrocities. Who remembers the Armenians - I mean the Kurds - after all?

What did the US do? Well, in September 1988 the Senate unanimously passed a sanctions bill, following some hard work conducted by Peter Galbraith, a staff member of Senator Pell's.

The Reagan administration was alarmed. After all, they had a cold war to fight. Cables went out to Bagdhad, seeking to assure Hussein that the US understood that the Kurdish problem was, "an historical one". As journalists pressed the Reagan administration for some public condemnation of the ongoing tragedy, a careful hypothetical was offered: "If they were true, of course, we would strongly condemn the use of chemical weapons, as we have in the past".

Which offers a nice lesson in realpolitik: when confronted with a moral atrocity, take refuge in the absence of perfect information.

Anyway, the sanctions bill was successfully opposed. Instead the US urged the UN to send in a team of experts to investigate these allegations, in the full knowledge that similar UN investigations in 1986, 1987 and 1988 had concluded that Iraq had used chemical weapons against Iran and that such work had done nothing to stem their use.

Measure for Measure

10-26-2003, 04:09 PM

Oh, just to be clear: The US supported Saddam Hussein when he conducted his reign of terror over his people. It was that little visit to Kuwait that changed matters.
----

Nuance: actually, I understand that relations between the US and Iraq did deteriorate somewhat in the period leading to Gulf War I. But I think it's fair to say that the US's anti-genocide policy during the 1980s was inert.

My sourcing is from A Problem from Hell by Samantha Powers (2002). The acerbic tone is my own.

Beagle

10-26-2003, 04:22 PM

Inevitable, as in a. A as in hole, possibly. But, it's hard not to do some kind of balancing test between what al Qaeda does and what Saddam did and still does, to Cuba. In other words, some of these guys need to stay behind bars until the "war" is over. To them, that may mean blowing themselves up in a truck near a building filled with civilians. I don't see letting them out to try to capture them all over again.

But, to be clear, executing the prisoners is wrong for a number of reasons. Some of them are arguably prisoners of war. Moreover, humane incarceration is more than sufficient.

The more I consider the death penalty the less I like it.

Beagle

10-26-2003, 04:24 PM

This is the best way to get the "whatevers" to acknowledge Saddam's atrocities.

Wesley Clark

10-26-2003, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by elucidator
What is all this in aid of, friend Beagle? Are you going to try and suggest that the US invasion of Iraq was somehow not only morally justified, but mandatory? Will you offer us an image of America the Tyrant Slayer, rampant to bring low the Unjust?

A few names, if you will: Trujillo, Pinochet, Deim, Nhu, Rhee, Batista, Duvalier, Reza Pahlavi,... A few of many, blood-soaked tyrants all.

So when did we have our conversion, our Road to Damascus? When did we become the sworn enemy of the kind of men we, but recently, nurtured and doted upon? This would be Wonderful News! Could you specify a date in particular? This would be even better, as we might establish a holiday in celebration.

Just because the US doesn't consistenly support human rights does not mean the US can never support human rights.

And from what i've read, before Jimmy Carter and vietnam human rights were not considered important in the US's foreign policy. Virtually every name you've listed occured before Carter's presidency. But there was support of tyrants after Carter too. Saddam, Suharto, The leaders of El Salvador, Somoza, etc. etc.

http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr990616.html

We also helped remove some dictators. Saddam, Milosevic, Somoza, Hitler, Hirohito, Mussolini, Omar Mohammed, Charles Taylor, Pinochet (the US acted behind the scenes with the help of Elliott Abrams to have him hold the plebiscite), Noreiga, etc. We also were a powerhouse in the war against communism. Today there are only 5 (vietnam, Laos, N korea, China, Cuba) communist countries, and according to freedom house 3-4 of them are among the worst 7 countries on earth for political and civil rights.

ElvisL1ves

10-26-2003, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by Daisy Cutter
I'm sure the prisoners will be much happier in their new facilities.

The only part that bugs me is why are they not building an execution chamber at gitmo as part of the new construction? Where else will we execute those found guilty and sentenced to death ? You tell us. When are the trials going to be? What are the charges and the evidence? Are you planning to skip those technicalities in the name of gittin' some o' dem dam' Ay-rabs, or what? After that, then you can talk about the execution chamber as one of the new facilities they'll be much happier with.

What the hell are you trying to accomplish with this approach?

beagle, is it really unclear that the accusation you're responding to is one of hypocrisy, not the use of warfare? The stated reasons are NOT the real ones, or people like you would be telling us about Burma and Sudan and Zimbabwe too. Well, why aren't you? Is it because you're having trouble facing certain truths about your own morality and gullibility, and would rather condemn those who can see a little more clearly as a defense mechanism?

Measure for Measure

10-26-2003, 05:56 PM

Ok, now that I've addressed the factual record....

I do agree that the US's past policy errors in no way justify turning a blind eye towards the tyrant de jour.

Elvis: Here's the problem.

Hawk: "Look at the Iraqi prisons! My God, Hussein was a sicko! I'm sure glad we invaded!"

Peacenik: "Your team wasn't so upset about Hussein in the 1980's, pal."

As I've framed the conversation, the Peacenik is basically making an ad hominem attack. Which is sort of off the point, right?

Now then:

Reflective Hawk: "Past policy errors do not justify future errors".

Sophisticated Peace Advocate: "If you are truly advocating a plan to systematically intervene when gross human rights abuses occur, I would like to see some elaboration. Absent such a comprehensive (although presumably unofficial) framework, I am inclined to dismiss your protests as propaganda, old chap".

Reflective Hawk: "Ok, but looking at the substance of the issue, surely it justifiable to point out the humanitarian benefits along with the security advantages associated with intervention."

SPA: "Maybe, but that's not the tune I was hearing earlier."

RH: "Oh, that was my evil twin...."

Rashak Mani

10-26-2003, 06:18 PM

Wow no Bushnicks mentioned "appeasment".. incredible... must be the summer time.

I prefer peace... but I go for Sun Tzu's "prepare for war if you want peace." So calling people who prefer peace as pacifists is a silly knee jerk reaction.

Now if Saddam was useful in the past and he became this "big" problem... why is the US turning a blind eye to Pakistan's extremism and undemocratic government ? Why are they pretending that Checyna isn't a major human rights problem ? That major military campaigns with clearly defined objetives leads to Vietnams.

So besides attacking one of the few secular governments in the Middle East why isn't the US refraining from commiting the same mistakes ?

Dreaming of Maria Callas

10-26-2003, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by Beagle
But, pacifists, grow up. The whole history of the world is warfare between groups of human beings. If you prepare for war and try to avoid it, one will still be thrust upon you.

Oh shit, someone better tell Switzerland and Costa Rica fast. :eek:

UnuMondo

An Arky

10-26-2003, 06:29 PM

This whole being opposed to war=appeasing Saddam and opposing the war=not supporting the troops is utter horseshit and I am really disappointed that people on this board, of all places, would continue to attempt to advance this ignorant fallacy. But hey, that's the right wing way. Demagogue on the rebarbitive hot buttons of the (majority in the US) dumbasses instead of offerring constructive ideas for improving our lot. All of us, that is.

Beagle

10-26-2003, 06:40 PM

Iran invaded sovereign US territory and held diplomats hostage for 444 days. In the West this is known as an "act of war." In the end, the hostages got out. A peaceful solution "worked," after the helicopter disaster in the desert.

The news coverage was bizarre. The media called the hostage takers "students" for some bizarre reason never clear to me. Even as a child I was pretty sure they weren't getting much studying done. For many US citizens the Iranian hostage crisis was their first introdution to Islam, or even the word. For years, many people were not sure if "Ayatollah" was a name or a title -- they just knew the "Khomeni" version attacked the United States every chance he got, and rubbed our faces in our "impotence" (restraint) for over a year.

Maybe the message was sent to Islamists (theocratic, dictatorial, expansionist) that the United States was weak and indecisive. US administrations used Saddam and Iraq to get at Iran and the Mullahs, instead of dealing with the Mullahs directly. Millions die in wars, and brutality reigns in both nations, but most not due to the US unless you are a wide-eyed true believer. By far, most of the arms were not from the US, for example. But, the US did ignore arms shipments that were made to both countries. In some cases the US did supply arms.

Reagan cuts and runs from Lebanon. Probably never should have gone. Bush I does liberate Kuwait for its royal family (beats Saddam in Kuwait), leave Saddam in power, and begin sanctions. That's a pretty mixed bag, in hindsight not enough and too much, IMO. Clinton, Somalia, Cole, first WTC, etc. Bush does not react until 9/11.

Now, finally, the United States is striking back. We've been living in a dream world where millions? of radicals foaming at the mouth about how they want to destroy the United States, et al is no threat. Should we bomb Karachi? No. But, to ignore the threat from the radicals that live there is sure not to work.

Give GWB credit for cleaning up one of the messes left over, Saddam, and credit for the new one.

So, part of the world that wants to destroy me, I'm putting you on notice: no more Mister Nice Guy. :rolleyes:

sailor

10-26-2003, 06:46 PM

>> Now, finally, the United States is striking back

No. It is striking Irak with no justification other than it shares religion and culture with some bad guys. If you find that acceptable then you must find 9/11 acceptable. The innocent people who died on 9/11 deserved to die about as much as the innocent Iraqis who have been killed since the war and occupation began. Killing innocent people is not justifiable.

CrankyAsAnOldMan

10-26-2003, 06:58 PM

And I don't still understand what the fuck the OP is about. What are "whatevers?" Which group of pacifists "always" uses the argument that we used to support Saddam? And furthermore, what's the argument? No informed person disputes that fact--but it's a fact, not an argument. Some people use it to bemoan what looks like hypocrisy, others probably use it to savor the irony, and I'm sure there are other points made. So what were *you* referring to?

And I don't get the equation you've set up. Do you mean pacifists in world policy are equivalent to Saddam? Or that they lead to Saddams? What?

Beagle

10-26-2003, 07:02 PM

No, actually, I don't have to find 9/11 acceptable.

I was referring to the extent that we were responsible for Saddam we are far more responsible for his, albeit temporary, demise. In the long run that will matter more than the presidential politics in all this. I don't have to believe what you want me to believe to make your strawmen easier to erect.

Soldiers really are dying for a lack of support from people in government, some pig-headed Republicans. Iraq is suffering because some high-minded but low rent "allies" are more concerned with their oil contracts with Saddam than the fate of the Iraqi people.

Take it from an American, they won't thank you.

Fortunately, the cut and run philosophy has not hit the soldiers or the majority of Americans yet.

elucidator

10-26-2003, 07:32 PM

And, once again, the scourge of Cognitive Dissonance has struck in our very midst! How many more, like poor young Beagle here, are to have thier wits torn from thier grasp by Cognitive Dissonance, the Number #1 threat to the Republic!

Remember, when your CD volunteer comes calling, give, and give generously....

Beagle

10-26-2003, 08:06 PM

Shit, luce, you've stumped me.

We are in shit up to our eyeballs and are fighting over a toothbrush, or something.

What happened to "now we're in this thing through reconstruction"?

I will say this, and I'm sure you'll agree, CD or not: the attack on Wolfowitz was pretty symbolic of the effort (post-statue) so far.

elucidator

10-26-2003, 08:29 PM

Is it "symbolic"? I haven't a clue. What are the motivations of our attackers? Were they, in fact, primarily interested in snuffing Paul W? To what end? Arent they aware that without a silver bullet, that's pretty much impossible?

For that matter, who are the attackers? Do we even know that?

Nothing has happened to my opinion as regards the reconstruction, yeppers, we're stuck with it. I am very concerned that the people who made the decision which brought this unhappy set of circumstances into being don't spend enough time with thier families. I should like to provide them with more opportunity for such robust and wholesome activity, far, far from the levers of power.

And then let's all write this down, so we don't forget it: Governance by ideologically addled chucklewits is a Bad Thing. After a sufficient time for penance and reflection, we might very well consider another Republican administration. 15, 20 years. Maybe. We'll see.

Beagle

10-26-2003, 08:32 PM

Yes, it's all about partisan politics.

Thank God. Now I'll be able to sleep at night, knowing clearer heads than mine are in charge.

No, it's not about poor downtrodden Iraqis, ground into submission under Saddam's boot for decades -- certainly helped by both parties on several occasions.

Dissonance

10-26-2003, 08:37 PM

Originally posted by Beagle
This is the best way to get the "whatevers" to acknowledge Saddam's atrocities. Huh? Who exactly are these “whatevers” who won’t acknowledge Saddam’s atrocities? Maybe I lead a sheltered life, but at least on this message board I haven’t seen anyone who lauds Saddam’s rule as merciful and enlightening. The only thing I’ve been able to draw from this thread, with apologies to friend elucidator, is a strange dissonance in statements such as this from the OP, bolding of course mine: The argument you hear from the "whatever" is always that the US "loved Saddam Hussein in the 1980s." Yes, when he was a secular socialist alternative to the Mullahs in Iran, and hadn't started his reign of terror over all his people yet.

To be fair, his first act was to walk into the legislature and personally have people killed publicly. We should have known something was up.Honestly, I don’t see how you can make those statements back to back with a straight face.

elucidator

10-26-2003, 08:50 PM

Oh, puh-lease, Beagle. Please tell me you're not fixing to trot out the New! Improved! Party Line. How it was all about liberating the poor downtrodden Iraqis.

Balderdash, sir! Tommyrot! It was all about "mushroom clouds" and "vast stores of VX nerve gas" and threat and fear and Saddam is coming to get yo' Mamma! It was only when we arrived and found out that one of the evilest shits on the planet was telling the truth! and we are the ones who are full of it. Oooopsy!

Then with a flick of the wrist poof! all gone! And then flow the tears crockidilian, emphasis on "crock". Now we want to put on our retrofitted virtue, and parade ourselves in public as "liberators". Our virtue is of recent vintage. Like new wine, it sets the teeth on edge.

If we, the people, are dumb enough to buy this shit, we deserve four more years. God help us.

Measure for Measure

10-26-2003, 10:38 PM

Here's some cognitive disonance.

I supported the proposed war in January, because the idea that Saddam didn't have WMDs seemed like a joke.

I had cold feet when our allies deferred.

A few hours after combat started, somebody on the board pointed out that any WMDs would be wide open for capture by Al Qaeda during hostilities, and that we should therefore hack away at the Al Qaeda network for a couple of years before launching on Iraq.

Oops.

Timing and sequencing is important, IMHO. Details matter.

Well, praise Allah, that the WMDs turned out to be a Chimera. I regret supporting this war, such as it was. (Better option: roughly speaking, focus first on Al Qaeda, then on North Korea, then on Iran, then on Iraq.)

But, guess what? Now that we're in, we gotta stay in. (Sort of. After a certain point, it is advisable to declare victory and get out.) In for a penny, in for a pound, as one estimatable analyst once said.

Short

10-27-2003, 04:15 AM

Originally posted by Wesley Clark
Just because the US doesn't consistently support human rights does not mean the US can never support human rights.

True. However, if the US doesn't support human rights in some cases, and argues it is vital in other cases, eyebrows will be raised.

And from what I've read, before Jimmy Carter and Vietnam human rights were not considered important in the US's foreign policy.

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove. The US violated human rights, and you come in saying the US had a policy which ignored human rights, so it's ok. Doesn't that strike you as strange?

As a matter of historical accuracy, although your arguement is nonsensical either way, the US has had a public face of supporting human rights for a hell of a lot longer than 25 years. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was signed by the US more than 50 years ago. There have been more than a few of multilateral conventions aimed at human rights protection before the Carter administration.

Lest anyone mistake my argument, there is a difference between the public face of policy, and the policy itself. The US often paid lip service to human rights, while ignoring the same. Examples as cited in previous posts.

In fact, we the people are always lead to war because of the atrocities of the enemy. The reason is simple, no one really wants to fight for strategic rubber reserves.

Virtually every name you've listed occurred before Carter's presidency. But there was support of tyrants after Carter too. Saddam, Suharto, The leaders of El Salvador, Somoza, etc. etc.

http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr990616.html

We also helped remove some dictators. Saddam, Milosevic, Somoza, Hitler, Hirohito, Mussolini, Omar Mohammed, Charles Taylor, Pinochet (the US acted behind the scenes with the help of Elliott Abrams to have him hold the plebiscite), Noreiga, etc.

So we removed Hitler, Hirohito and Mussolini in what, the Regan administration? If you want to argue that human rights weren't a concern prior to the Carter administration, putting in examples of human rights concerns in the Second World War won't help your case. (You may also want to look up the details on the "removal" of Hirohito.)

Noreiga, Pinochet... I'd like to add them to the list of Dictators which the US supported.

We also were a powerhouse in the war against communism. Today there are only 5 (Vietnam, Laos, N korea, China, Cuba) communist countries, and according to freedom house 3-4 of them are among the worst 7 countries on earth for political and civil rights.

I'm not sure that a communist county is a priori a human rights violator. In fact, some might argue that interventions in countries just because of a conflict of ideology is one of the darkest parts of American Foreign Policy.

Regarding the OP, Beagle, you're nuts. The administration's justification for war was not that Iraq had a poor human rights record, and peace activists didn't ever say Hussein was a good guy. Bush may have paid lip service to human rights (as is customary when going to war), but that was not the primary interest. How do we know? Wait for it...

Inconsistent human rights policy.

No peace activists objects to human rights as a foreign policy objective. However, they point to the inconsistent record to show that it is not presently the objective of American foreign policy. Hussein was violating human rights in the 1980s, and we didn't care. Hussein was violating human rights in the 1990s, and suddenly we cared. That, folks, is inconsistency.

Let's move now to the subject of peace activists. There were many arguments against the war. For instance, the concern America would be lead into a quagmire wherein the people we claimed to be rescuing didn't want our help after all. Additionally, some peace activists argued that attacking Iraq would radicalize a great many people and increase global terrorism. Some claimed that following fundamental principles of international law, such as not attacking a country without UN approval, would further global stability. And so on... You may note that nowhere on this list is the argument that Hussein is a nice person.

Of course, we really went to war with Afghanistan, and Iraq is just an extension of that... You see, they are both foreign countries run by Osama bin Hussein, and hiding evil-doers in caves with their weapons of mass destruction. Dammit, I can't ever remember if we're at war with Eurasia or Eastasia. Down the memory hole, I guess.

Beagle

10-27-2003, 06:50 AM

FYI, Saddam took power in 1979. (http://www.emergency.com/hussein1.htm) The Iran War came so quickly after that most Americans, even in government, did not know his name.

We already had "Ayatollah Khomeni" etched into our memories and brains. Thanks to his wonderful first impression, most Americans assumed nobody could be worse.

Beagle

10-27-2003, 07:20 AM

Iran -- Iraq War. (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/iran-iraq.htm) Technically, Iraq was helping us strike at a nation that declared war on us. However long that support lasted, I find it hard to believe it creates a bigger moral paradox than being allied with Stalin, or the rest of rogues that have lead other nations.

Ya dance with who ya brung. Sometimes it's a blind date. I'm feeling homespun.

Wesley Clark

10-27-2003, 07:51 AM

Originally posted by Short

In fact, we the people are always lead to war because of the atrocities of the enemy. The reason is simple, no one really wants to fight for strategic rubber reserves.

True. Moral righteousness and self defense are the 2 biggest excuses for going to war from what i've seen. From what i've seen most wars were sold on one or both of these 2 principles. Even the Nazis, Soviets, Japanese and Italian fascists claimed they fought for moral righteousness. And so did the allies as evidenced by the fact that our political enemies are considered synonymous with oppression in popular culture (the nazis, communists, islamic fundamentalists).

Beagle

10-27-2003, 07:57 AM

It was supposed to be "eyeballs and brains." I have brain -- finger dissonance.

A right wing take on the inconsistency of Jimmy Carter's HR record and Israel. (http://jfednepa.org/mark%20silverberg/jimmycarter.html)

I wonder if that's why he never commented on the putsch that cemented Saddam's leadership? That Saddam had a "different concept of human rights." I can only find Snippets of Carter's foreign policy towards Iraq, if he had one. He was "neutral" on the war, but there is more to the story that is hard to find, IMO.

People only get interested when President Reagan takes office, due to the aforementioned overriding partisan considerations, but the major events happened under Carter (Hostages, Saddam, Iran -- Iraq War).

I don't know how this snuck into ZMag (http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/ShalomIranIraq.html), but it's reasonable and well written. Obviously it has its own slant, but not as bad as you would think. Alright, IT'S GREAT!!! Fine, the "whatevers" can be smart also. The war between Iran and Iraq was one of the great human tragedies of recent Middle Eastern history. Perhaps as many as a million people died, many more were wounded, and millions were made refugees. The resources wasted on the war exceeded what the entire Third World spent on public health in a decade.<1>

The war began on September 22, 1980, when Iraqi troops launched a full-scale invasion of Iran. Prior to this date there had been subversion by each country inside the other and also major border clashes. Iraq hoped for a lightning victory against an internationally isolated neighbor in the throes of revolutionary upheaval. But despite Iraq's initial successes, the Iranians rallied and, using their much larger population, were able by mid-1982 to push the invaders out. In June 1982, the Iranians went over to the offensive, but Iraq, with a significant advantage in heavy weaponry, was able to prevent a decisive Iranian breakthrough. The guns finally fell silent on August 20, 1988.

Primary responsibility for the eight long years of bloodletting must rest with the governments of the two countries -- the ruthless military regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the ruthless clerical regime of the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran. Khomeini was said by some to have a "martyr complex," though, as U.S. Secretary of State Cyrus Vance wryly observed, people with martyr complexes rarely live to be as old as Khomeini. Whatever his complexes, Khomeini had no qualms about sending his followers, including young boys, off to their deaths for his greater glory. This callous disregard for human life was no less characteristic of Saddam Hussein. And, for that matter, it was also no less characteristic of much of the world community, which not only couldn't be bothered by a few hundred thousand Third World corpses, but tried to profit from the conflict.................. [bm]

Beagle

10-27-2003, 08:12 AM

It's really pretty simple, I base my philosophy on mass graves. If there are huge numbers of bodies being buried in pits or dumped in rivers (Somalia) it is up to the free (and unfree) peoples of the world to do something about it. The only useful response to genocide -- every single time -- is force.

The first HR, that we can all agree on (hopefully) is the right to be free from genocide. I sometimes wonder if Nuremburg is limited to the facts of that particular case, given the number of mass graves turning up in Iraq and all over the world since then.

Though the Communists disagreed, political freedom is equally essential for a number of reasons. Can't we all just get along and agree to disagree?

*OW! Stop hitting me with those batons!*

*But I've already been in school long enough. Whats a RE-education anyway?*

Tamerlane

10-27-2003, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by Beagle
Iran invaded sovereign US territory and held diplomats hostage for 444 days. In the West this is known as an "act of war."

Kinda, sorta, but not exactly. The Iranian hostage crisis was precepitated semi-spontaneously by extra-governmental militants enraged that the Shah was allowed to enter the U.S. for medical treatment ( he had been in Mexico ). They got an after-the-fact backing from Khomeini, but it wasn't really a government action per se. In fact the government was blind-sided and the "moderate" Prime Minister ( Barzagan ) and Foreign Minister ( Yazidi ), both of whom had been working to reach a rapproachment with the U.S., were forced out by the invigorated clerical faction, who seized on the hostage crisis as a chance to suppress their opponents in the government.

However it did eventually morph into a de facto government action ( as Khomeini had control over the situation pretty quickly ). So you can make a case either way,in a sense.

The media called the hostage takers "students" for some bizarre reason never clear to me.

It's because they were, in fact, mostly college students. It was a worked up street mob of hunderds or thousands ( I've seen anywhere from 500 - 3,000 quoted ) of mostly pro-clerical faction college militants.

- Tamerlane

Beagle

10-27-2003, 09:13 AM

Yes. As you already noted, by the end it was a de facto government action supported by Khomeni fully. I choose function and actions of the government over formalism in this case.

The most important effect is the effect on public opinion. That made Iran and Khomeni public enemy number one. What is reality if it isn't perception and the media? Politics.

Beagle

10-27-2003, 09:23 AM

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure if Somalia even has any rivers. I meant Rwanda where the ethnic violence was allowed to "work itself out." Mostly with machetes.

I've got Black Hawk Down and "Black Hawk down" on the brain.

Coldfire

10-27-2003, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by Beagle
FYI, Saddam took power in 1979. (http://www.emergency.com/hussein1.htm) The Iran War came so quickly after that most Americans, even in government, did not know his name.I'd say some Americans knew his name as early as 1959. (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2849.htm)

Dissonance

10-27-2003, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by Beagle
It's really pretty simple, I base my philosophy on mass graves. If there are huge numbers of bodies being buried in pits or dumped in rivers (Somalia) it is up to the free (and unfree) peoples of the world to do something about it. The only useful response to genocide -- every single time -- is force.And here’s some more of that dissonance again. If the only useful response to genocide is force, why was it okay to support/side with Iraq up until 1990, the USSR during World War II, etc? Shouldn’t we have invaded Iraq in 1979, Cambodia in 1975 and nuked Stalin in 1945? You aren’t being consistent with regards to human rights in the slightest. If you are going to argue from a realpolitik position, fine, just don’t try to dress it up as more than that. Some clarification on how you think Saddam’s terror hadn’t begun in the 80s when in the next sentence you type you admit that his first action was to publicly kill political opponents in the legislature isn’t self contradicting would be nice. Perhaps I’m not made of stern enough stuff, but if a sitting president walked into Congress and started shooting people, I’d be pretty terrorized. Alternatively, an explanation of who exactly these “whatevers” you harp on about are would be nice.

Beagle

10-27-2003, 09:48 PM

Sorry, I'm not going to defend every stupid CIA misadventure in the history of the United States when I already explicitly stated that we inherit foreign policy blunders from our forebears.

Nor am I going to apoligize for efforts to keep Soviet Communism from spreading. The excess that happened on both sides were extreme. The US is not covered with mass graves of Communists, OTOH.

Beagle

10-27-2003, 09:58 PM

Does anyone read my other posts, not the OP?

The whole point is you inherit the jokers that run other nations. I don't have to justify any past actions except those that I outlined in my OP, which obviously some people read as an invitation to talk about the present war, presidential politics, and the anti-Reagan talking points from back in the day.

We supported Iraq as a counterweight to Iran, led by a noted joker: an old martyr.

France supported Iraq far more during that time period. Is that fair to mention?

Dissonance

10-27-2003, 10:21 PM

Originally posted by Beagle
Sorry, I'm not going to defend every stupid CIA misadventure in the history of the United States when I already explicitly stated that we inherit foreign policy blunders from our forebears.

Nor am I going to apoligize for efforts to keep Soviet Communism from spreading. The excess that happened on both sides were extreme. The US is not covered with mass graves of Communists, OTOH. I didn’t ask for either. If you are arguing from realpolitik, that’s perfectly acceptable, that’s how the world works, unfortunate though it may be. My problems are these:

1) You claimed to be consistent on human rights. You clearly aren’t, you have yet to explain how yes, when he was a secular socialist alternative to the Mullahs in Iran, and hadn't started his reign of terror over all his people yet.

To be fair, his first act was to walk into the legislature and personally have people killed publicly.isn’t patently self-contradicting. It’s a realpolitik position, accepting or ignoring vast human rights violations when it is politically expedient to do so. Again, it’s how the world works, but please don’t dress it up and act like it’s a consistent position.

2) You still haven’t clarified how exactly these “whatevers” are.

3) You smeared pacifism by equating it with mass murdering shitbags like Saddam. Really, this is the biggest of my objections. Should we bring the Dalai Lama before the Hague to stand trial for supporting genocide?

And yes, I actually have read all of your posts, not just the OP.

Beagle

11-09-2003, 12:33 AM

Everyone gets realpolitik when they think that a nation (Iran) has declared war on them, if that was what you mean. That was a statement of fact, not a normative statement.

I've been trying to point out that just the basic facts of what went on back then have been spun to the point that the mere dates can defeat some arguments. Um, no, Reagan did not put Saddam in power. Carter was there for the hostages, Saddam, and the war. What was his policy? That was not a rhetorical question.

Here is how the argument goes, IRL, and here often:

I (American) don't like Saddam.

"But your nation did (some CIA operation)"

American: "Being without infinite patience, I prefer not to debate the Cold War or the history of the CIA every time the subject of foreign policy comes up."

I, personally, can be consistent on human rights. My nation may not be in every case, obviously. I think you are conflating me with the United States government. I refuse to devolve every debate into the cast of characters that the United States supported back during the Cold War, unless you will give equal time to the Gulag Archipelago, Communist expansionism, mutual assured destruction, or the Soviet seizure of Eastern Europe. That's a big topic to debate every time foreign policy comes up.

Revel explains why this seems to happen all the time in several books.

"Whatever" is a generic term for people that trot out these tired political talking points from the left. Sometimes this is cloaked in terms like "peace movement." In a sentence: Carter was a sucker or hypocrite. Clinton's policy against terror was flaccid, if nothing else was. But, modern Republican presidents get the harsh historical critiques and defamatory movies.

I want to see JFK on pain pills giving it to Marilyn Monroe on sleeping pills. That's Oscar worthy stuff.

elucidator

11-09-2003, 05:17 AM

Precisely when, on what date, did we become the virtuous virgin of Human Rights? It is a marvelous device. Stuff a crack whore in one end, out the other comes Mary Jane in her maryjanes clutching her prayer book as she flounces off to First Communion.

The USA has a history of supporting bloody tyrants as long as your arm. For fifty years, any frothing psychopath with an funny hat and cheesy pilot-like sunglasses could count on airdrops of money, guns and lawyers from the US simply by declaring a firm opposition to instability and/or Communism. Being bloody tyrants, they frequently engendered insurgency. By an astonishing coincidence, these movements invariably turned out to be Communist! Batista, Trujillo, Duvalier, Reza Pahlavi, Nhu, Diem, Pinochet, Syngman Rhee, Somoza, Uguarte....let me know when you get bored.

Recently assumed virtue, like new wine, sets the teeth on edge.

Beagle

11-09-2003, 09:06 AM

Yeah. I read that one already.

It's just nihilism. You skate right past hundreds of millions of Communist mass murders to condemn me. I'll grant out that brutal dictators of every political stripe should be abolished.

C'mon, lefties! Join me. Condemn Communist China, Vietnam, North Korea! It's liberating.

elucidator

11-09-2003, 10:41 AM

Piffle. Show me where me or any of my ilk (got my ilk?) has wasted any hamster juice defending any of the above named regimes. Your gleeful exposure of presumed hypocrisy is a fantasy.

2Thick

11-09-2003, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by Beagle
Lest we forget that Iran declared war on the United States.

Cite?

jjimm

11-09-2003, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by Beagle
C'mon, lefties! Join me. Condemn Communist China, Vietnam, North Korea! It's liberating. I'll step up to the plate. If you consider me a leftie (which I suspect you would, though I consider myself merely a liberal). Sure. I condemn the disgusting human right violations of the governments of all three of the countries mentioned. That includes the right to self-determination, dissident status, etc.

I condemn disgusting human rights violations wherever they occur.

Now, do I get some sort of prize?

CnoteChris

11-09-2003, 12:42 PM

A one way ticket out of the country?

Dissonance

11-09-2003, 08:38 PM

Originally posted by Beagle
C'mon, lefties! Join me. Condemn Communist China, Vietnam, North Korea! It's liberating. I've condemned them repeatedly. I assume you’d identify me as a ‘leftie,’ though honestly I’m a bit left of center, and surprisingly, American. I'd like to see some actual evidence that anyone here who wasn't completely loopy defended any of those regimes. This thread is an extended straw man where you've created "whatevers" who do such things without identifying them.

Tars Tarkas

11-10-2003, 12:05 AM

Originally posted by Beagle
I've got Black Hawk Down and "Black Hawk down" on the brain.

You've got Down's, all right.

Why did you bump this ignorant shit?

capacitor

11-10-2003, 12:14 AM

Beagle, like you, I was also happy that the US freed Cambodia from Pol Pot.

Then I woke up and realized it was the hated Vietnamese who did.

Dissonance

11-10-2003, 12:37 AM

Originally posted by Tars Tarkas
Why did you bump this ignorant shit? My fault, I’m afraid. I made reference to this thread in the Iraq and Comparisons to Vietnam (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=221858&pagenumber=2) thread after Milum decided to hijack the thread with brainless French bashing and Beagle chimed in.

Dissonance

11-10-2003, 12:43 AM

Beagle

11-10-2003, 08:45 AM

Actually it was documented French bashing.

Stick that "cite" up your ass and do some research yourself. I'm sick of being everyone's basic history and civics teacher.

elucidator

11-10-2003, 08:59 AM

I'm sure we will all be quite bereft without your valued input, Beagle. But if this is the best decision for you, I think we must all learn to accept it. It will be hard, at first, or course, but given time the wounds will heal, and we will find the strength to go on.

Beagle

11-10-2003, 08:53 PM

Smart ass remarks aside, I have already been over that issue in some detail. I would suggest that people avail themselves of any news outlet that covered the recent demonstrations in Iran where the chant remains "Death to Israel. Death to America."

Unlike demonstrations for democracy, these are not put down by the government. Just because war is cloaked in religious terms does not mean war has not been declared. Don't expect the enemy to fight by your rules.

elucidator

11-10-2003, 09:07 PM

Let me see if I got this right, friend Beagle. Iranians stage anti-American demonstrations, the government does not intervene in this dastardly display of dis, which means that the government of Iran essentially supports the expressed hostility and that is approximately equal to a declaration of war.

Is that about it?

'possum stalker

11-10-2003, 09:25 PM

I'm just glad someone finally had the guts to stand up to those damn pacifists. Beagle, you are a steely-eyed, Kissingeresque master of realpolitik, while lefties are flower-tossing pansies.

Here's to you, Beagle.
(drinks heartily from 'Hawkshot' mug, chokes to death on own sarcasm)

Beagle

11-10-2003, 09:36 PM

You're right. It's like shooting at fish in your bathtub with a 12 gauge -- a la Training Day, or something.

:o

Sorry, Quakers! I didn't mean you folks.

pantom

11-10-2003, 09:57 PM

Beagle, rest assured I'm not using you as a source of learning for civics or history or anything else. On the evidence, I doubt I ever will. (Actually, until I read this sorry excuse for a thread, I barely knew you existed. Now I regret the knowledge.)
How do you get your ego through ordinary doorways?

Beagle

11-10-2003, 09:59 PM

It collapses.

Thanks for your input. We'll keep it on file for six months.

Beagle

11-10-2003, 10:41 PM

As for Vietnam, they invaded Cambodia after the pits were full. Soon after that the "boat people" began flooding out of Vietnam. What a mess. Vietnam saved Cambodia? Vietnam hasn't saved itself yet.

Political critics of the CPV are all in jail or under constant surveillance. Prison conditions are some of the worst in the world. There is unrest, but the government won't allow the media to cover it.

Beagle

11-10-2003, 10:55 PM

According to my browser, luce, this is the last post I made on page 1, among others, dealing with this issue. Yes. As you already noted, by the end it was a de facto government action supported by Khomeni fully. I choose function and actions of the government over formalism in this case.

The most important effect is the effect on public opinion. That made Iran and Khomeni public enemy number one. What is reality if it isn't perception and the media? Politics. It is significant in a nation without free speech to note what is allowed to be said. It's an inescapable conclusion if you use logic instead of political preconceptions.

"Death to America" is the official policy. They support the destruction of America through their interpretation of martyrdom, etc. It's not that complex. They don't declare war the same way we do. It took decades of "Death to America" and learning about Islamic radicals, but it's not really earthshattering that the Iranians have been at war with us for years.

We launched a helicopter mission into Iran which got dozens of people killed. Nobody questioned it because everyone knew we were already at war. Sovereign territory of the US is that. Usama doesn't blow up an embassy because it has no significance.

Dissonance

11-11-2003, 12:10 AM

From Beagle in the Vietnam threadFrance didn't ignore Saddam's bad habits, it supplied them. US intelligence information + French and Soviet hardware = dead Iranians. That's a point people always forget when they jump to attack the US: France being Iraq's second biggest arms supplier during the first 10 years of Saddam's reign. They sold him advanced missiles and advanced attack planes.

Another LAT article that picks up the story with Reagan in power. Saddam already was there and the Iran - Iraq war was underway. Somehow, it's all his fault.

The US was trying to play Iraq and Iran off against one another so that neither nation would win. France went one step beyond and openly supplied Iraq with substantial advanced weaponry. The French wanted the Iraqis to win. Not a big deal really: arms sales, military assistance. But, since every US citizen has to go over modern history to engage in debate, I think it is only fair to bring up our biggest detractors on the world stage when their actions were more substantial.Continuing this in the other thread is an enormous hijack. I’d put it to you that this isn’t something that people always forget, it’s something you think people always forget. You also seem to assume that anyone pointing any of these things out is jumping to attack the US. I for one am fully aware of where Iraq got its weapons during the Iran-Iraq war. I’d also put it to you that the US had no problems with France supplying arms to Iraq during the 80s. Calling it one step beyond making it a post facto crime is as silly as saying the US loved Saddam in the 80s.

Regarding Stick that "cite" up your ass and do some research yourself. I'm sick of being everyone's basic history and civics teacher.if thisThe whole thread was about information, and the twisting thereof. I could do a reading if requested and well compensated. What most people knew about Saddam Hussein when he took power was nothing. There was no internet news. Home computers were just starting to get a foothold.is your idea of how information flowed before the advent of computers and the internet, I’d suggest you discover such modern innovations as the print newspaper and the telegraph. Believe it or not, people, particularly those in power, could be quite well informed. Informed people might not draw the exact same conclusions as you. Not everyone who subscribes to the extremist rhetoric that you do is a “whatever” – if such people actually exist.

Beagle

11-11-2003, 07:47 AM

I think I did a pretty good job of drawing out the opinions that I predicted were out there. It's a debate tactic. I refuse to concede any ground just because it makes my opponents uncomfortable.

I take your arguments and deconstruct them. I reverse them. I leave out some facts to let people draw the political conclusions based on no facts that they always do. Then, you point out the automatic nature of the argmentation. It's hypocrisy season.

This all goes back to the Europeans and their unwillingness to self-critique, but over-willingness to blame all the world's problems on the right in the United States. I've been citing Jean-Francois Revel all over the place. Incorporate everything he's ever written by reference, here. Throw in the craven despicible French and German relationship with Saddam, that they apparently won't let go of, and that's it in a nutshell.

I've given up on them. We'll see you guys on the back end of Shari'a Law. Enjoy.