Oh I agree as a nation modern Americans aren’t inherently evil (roll it back a few generations and oh how that changes), however for the last 8 years there was much evil in America’s government.
It was seething with lies, torture, and the death of hundreds of thousands of innocents.
Americans, for whatever reason chose to put that war criminal in power, and so bear the moral responsibility of his crimes.
Every scream and agonized cry as a result rests on every American’s conscience. Except, of course for the people who voted for someone other than Bush.
What do we have now. I saw an interview with David Simons who was the writer of “The Wire” on TV. He was a reporter for a Baltimore Newpaper in the 90s. He lost his job when they were buying out the reporters and cutting staff. Since the paper is now in bankruptcy ,the financials are public. When they were cutting the staff ,they were making 37 percent profits. They put the profits into bosses salaries and benefits and increased dividends. They planned on making ever greater profits. Apparently they thought cutting the quality was OK. They saw a sustainable economic model with advertising and that it would translate to the internet. Good plan. But another paper bites the dust.
Dude, I admire you. That you can have such faith, respect and cognitive dissonance about anything is amazingly impressive, and something I’ll probably never reach. Enjoy your life, 'cause it looks like fun.
And if I had said that it was THE primary justification for the invasion you’d have a point. But I didn’t say that. and I can’t believe you’re actually claiming that there was just a one-pronged rationale. Surely Bush & Co. are more evil than to have the whiole argument hang on one hook.
As far as the attack being imminent, Bush never claimed it was. The point was to act before an attack was imminent, when it might then be two late to stop it. And I recall the genius Joe Biden actually saying something intelligent. Something to the effect. “If I felt the attack was imminent, even within year or so, I’d say we have to act. But I don’t see it.”
The point is there was NOT one reason or benefit. Was protecting America the primary one? My opinion is “yes”.
American values are good when they are good and evil when they are evil. Beign American does not exmpt them from moral judgment. Evil is as evil does. If you do evil then that part of you is evil. And America has done plenty of evil in the last eight years and plenty of Americans, many on this board, still defend torture and other evil things. As long as anyone defends evil acts I am entitled to expose them as the evil that they are. (BTW, if anyone had told me ten years ago that America and Americans would be using and defending torture I would have told them they were crazy.)
I am reminded of some years ago in DC, a boy not even 20 killed a Chinese owner of a corner store and was promptly arrested. His mother was protesting her kid was a “good boy”. No, lady, no. Your boy just killed a man. Your boy may have been a good boy until now, although I doubt it, but once you kill a man you are not a good boy any more. You may have done good things but you are not a good boy.
America is a “good” country when it respects human rights and international law but when it is torturing it is doing evil. There is just no way around it.
I agree with this. America was scared, not only by the attacks but by the rhetoric and policies of Bush who created and exploited the fear for their own ends of which the Iraq invasion was just one. But notice that many calm people called for reason and calm but they were shouted down by those calling themselves patriots. And note that many Americans like to brag about how tough and unafraid Americans are when, in fact, the opposite is true: America panicked after the attacks like no other country and many Americans, many on this board, accused other countries of being cowards and weak for not reacting the same way to terrorist attacks. Being brave means not panicking but Americans panicked afetr 9/11 and “something had to be done” even if it as evil, irrational and counterproductive. Americans repeat to themselves how brave and how tough they are more than any other people I know and it seems to me a case of “tell me what you boast and I’ll tell you what you lack”. Neither Americans are as brave as they like to think nor Iraqis are cowards as many Americans also like to think. If America was invaded Americans would fight for their homeland and I expected the Iraqis to do no less. That America thought otherwise just shows how deluded they were. When you have these feelings of superiority and exceptionalism you end up justifying all sorts of crimes. America and Americans are not as exceptional as they like to think and, in any case, they have no right to violate human rights or international law.
You just do not get it. America is not above the rest of the world. The UN IS the world as represented by all the member countries. If the UN decides that respecting other countries’ sovereignty is the right thing to do then America need to abide by that. It is not “the UN”, it is the countries of the world assembled at the UN. What gives America the right to impose its will on the rest of the world by force?
A tenant in a condo association might believe there are roaches in apartment 346 and can bring that to the attention of the condo association. But once the condo association says they are aware of the problem but decided to just talk to the owner of the aprtment, it is not OK for that tenant to force his way in to apartment 346 and fumigate the place while the people are sleeping. Yes, it may solve the problem with the roaches but it creates a host of other, bigger, problems.
It is very shortsighted to see only the short term potential benefits and not appreciate the harm done and that is what America did. The world was not buying the stated reasons or justifications for the invasion of Iraq, torture, etc. The world, like many Americans saw right through the lies. And the damage done to world peace and to America’s place in the world will be long lasting and take decades to heal. It was utter stupidity.
America is not the world’s caretaker or policeman and it needs to learn to live in the international community respecting international law and the community of countries as represented by the UN. The UN is not an outside body which deals with America. America deals with the community of nations and with those nations through the UN. So whan America says “fuck the UN, I’m starting a war” it is not only harming Iraq but also the whole community of countries.
That the whole Bush administration was an international disaster can easily be appreciated when you see that all the nations of the world were looking forward to the day when he would be replaced and by the new atmosphere of hope which permeates the entire world now that he’s gone.
What Bush did was criminal and anyone who defends it is defending evil.
So, since America is not the world’s caretaker or policeman, it’s okay if we also stop sending cash and troops to help with international efforts? I mean, we’re not exceptional, so we can just keep our own money and lives and decide what to do with them?
Interesting, because I see you guys talking from both sides of your mouth - America’s not special, but our money and resources sure are. The UN continues to coddle and excuse murderous dictators, and that’s okay, but when we talk about stopping the money train, whoa, better back off. America is getting fucked in the UN.
And, for those of you who love to throw the “eeeevil” around, and apply it to GWB and his henchmen, you should be completely fucking ashamed of yourselves. Things in America are nice and cushy - you have no idea what true evil can be committed on a populace.
Irag has turned out to be a fuckup (mostly), but the day Saddam was hung from a rope was the best day in the fight against “evil” in a long time, and you have none other than GWB to thank for it.
The world was pleading with you not to send troops to invade Iraq so, yes, I think that would be OK if they had stayed home.
As for money, I have no idea what you are talking about, but, in any case, giving money to whatever America gives money to, (and Americans have a very mistaken sense that they contribute much more than they actually do) does not entitle you to kill, invade, torture or any of those things. If America thinks it is entitled to killing and torturing because it contributes some money somewhere then they can keep their money. Other countries are happy to contribute their share without being assholes about it. At any rate, what is this “money” you talk about? I have not seen a single penny from America in my life. If you want me to shut up it’s going to cost you more than a pretty penny but PM me and we can discuss the price.
America has been getting a pass at the UN where other countries have kept quiet about the violations because they did not want to alienate America. America has gotten a pass just like anyone else.
Um, ok. If you say so.
Yeah, sure, ask all the dead Iraqis, and the injured and the ones who lost their homes and are displaced inside or outside Iraq. Ask them if just because Saddam Hussein is dead that makes them happy about the rest of the misery they are going through.
America has as much right to hang the president of Iraq as Iraq has to hang the president of America. And they both deserve it about the same.
I am reminded of some years ago in DC, a boy not even 20 killed a Chinese owner of a corner store and was promptly arrested. His mother was protesting her kid was a “good boy”. No, lady, no. Your boy just killed a man. Your boy may have been a good boy until now, although I doubt it, but once you kill a man you are not a good boy any more. You may have done good things but you are not a good boy.
[/QUOTE]
I think everyone here would agree that murder was wrong, evil. So, I don’t see the analogy. And for the record, I hate (but understand) when parents do this. The mothers of the savages that pulled Reginald Denny out of his truck and repeatedly bashed him in the head with a brick during the Rodney King riots participated in this unhelpful stupidity.)
You’ll have to define torture again, and identify those other “evils”. Also, you have to look to intent, and whatever “good” might result form these evil acts. I’d say killing 100s of 1,000s of people in one fell swoop is pretty evil, but if it saves a million lives, like dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and nagasaki did, it’s hard to characterize those acts as evil. Tell, me what is your stance on those bombings?
Because it contributes to the good of the planet more than any other nation. Do you really think the the U.S. is equal to Zaire or Honduras or Belgium or Italy or Vietnam? If a modern day Klaatu came to earth and said "I am going to completely obliterate one country, either the U.S. or Norway or Guatemala, do you really think the loss to the world would be equally as great for any of the countries?
If so, the one who “doesn’t GET it”, is you.
It is very shortsighted to see only the short term potential benefits and not appreciate the harm done and that is what America did. The world was not buying the stated reasons or justifications for the invasion of Iraq, torture, etc. The world, like many Americans saw right through the lies.
[/QUOTE]
This is bullshit. There was a lot of information to look at. You and others love to say "oh, yes, I knew all the evidence pointed to the U.S. not going into Iraq. There’s this general or that. Well, they were all listened to. And in something like this, there are always dissenting opinions. They were heard, and the best judgement by most people in the know—at the time—was to not listen to the detractors. You claim you “saw through the lies”, but you can’t even point objectively to what those lies were. And back in 2001-2003, without the benefit of time to see the mistakes and the absence of no WMDs, all you had were opinions. Grow up.
Also, just as a seemingly “good” act can have long term consequences that are not good, it can also have long term consequences that are a boon.
Then you’d be fine with us, not sending a dime in aid anywhere? Or not intervening ANYPLACE on the globe EVER? Somehow, I don’t think you’d be alright with that. What you and your ilk want is for America to continue to doing the immense amount of good it does around the world but for that good to be ignored. And for her to not be rocognized for it, not be given credit. On the one hand you want some fantastical equality, but on the other you want America to help the world as much as it has.
The fact of the matter is that America has been a godsend to the planet. How you can deny this, with the deciding role that played in two World Wars in recent memory, would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.
Any country’s first obligation is to itself. They need to do whatever they deem best for their own protection. So, yes, the U.N. is and outside body. One that’s pretty fucking useless, unfortunately.
What a nice tidy, neat little world you live in. Oh look, it’s recess time. Let’s go play hide-n-seek. Then have some milk and cookies!
I know. Saddam killed Iraqi civilians, approved torture and invaded another country without provocation. Thank Jah that George W. Bush was around to stop all those things.
How does “being a doofus” excuse the fact that he (and his friendly PNAC cohorts) ordered the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent atrocities that followed? If you’re arguing that Saddam murdered more people than W, I’d might agree in the abstract since we don’t (and possibly never will) know the real number of Iraqis killed as a direct result of said invasion. We do know, however, that over 5,000 Americans soldiers needlessly died and likely five times that number suffered all sorts of grave wounds.
Whether that means that Bush “killed his own people” (as the Saddam mantra goes) or not, I’ll leave for the reader to decide. However if we start with the premise that it was an unjust and unnecessary war, well…
In the end however, that they both acted in evil ways that resulted in the carnage of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, I think, is beyond dispute.
Ask the Iraqis. Saddam was their problem. But, over half the students in college were women and they could dress how they wanted. People of differing religions married . They were not walled off like they are now. When we leave there will be a power vacuum filled by whoever wins the battles.They havehad a horrible last 4 years and a terrifying future. They should thank us right?
The U.S. doesn’t have a history of supporting murdering dictators? Surly, you don’t think U.S. aid is motivated by altruism or troops are committed because of some moral principle. All states act in their own self interest. It’s hard to believe the U.S. is the exception.
The U.S. supported Saddam and provided the weapons he used against the Kurds, so when did Saddam become evil enough to justify invading Iraq? After he invaded Kuwait but not before exterminating his people?
I personally would say they were evil acts. Hell, take an entirely ridiculous scenario - you must kill a single person so that a million do not die. Though you’re also doing a good, you’re still doing an evil. Consequences do not cancel out each other - doing a great good and a great evil at the same time doesn’t mean you’ve done a morally neutral act, it means you’ve done both good and evil. Yes, having done a good act at the same time is better than just doing the evil, but by no means should we claim that good results by any means make it less of an evil act.
Zeriel, the quality of news produced today by the U.S. press is not a persuasive argument to maintain the current system. There is no foreign news to speak of, certainly nothing in depth. All of the major news networks have cut foreign correspondents, CNN might have one or two, and only two Newspapers maintain foreign correspondents. There are no U.S. correspondents in Africa --a continent. Blogs provide much of the fodder for news networks. Bloggers are frequently on the news to provide one side of the opinion. Essentially, the news you think of as inferior is the news today.
I don’t think there is an easy solution or necessarily one solution, but I fail to understand what is inferior or inherently undemocratic with subsidizing U.S. public broadcasting at the level of a BBC and allow it to stand alongside a commercial press. In a democracy, a subsidized press system is accountable to the citizens not controlled by the government. In the days of the early Republic, printing and postal services were subsidized by the government to promote a diverse press. A democratic society can have a capitalist system and a subsidized press.
Americans are doing exactly the same thing: they are excusing things because they were done by their own people. If the same things were done by others to Americans they would be crying bloody murder.
Oh, give me a bloody break. I’m tired of going over this in every thread. Everybody knows it was torture and playing with words is not going to change that. I’m not playing this game.
The law does not admit that excuse. I do not understand why some people are willing to excuse breaking the law. Is the law to be followed or not?
[quote=“magellan01, post:191, topic:493603”]
Because it contributes to the good of the planet more than any other nation. Well, that is disputable but it does not matter, let us assume that for the sake of argument. That does not grant it any right to break the law or do immoral things. None whatsoever. Germany was at the head of Europe in science and technology and medicine etc in the 1930s but that does not excuse the attrocities committed. On the contrary, I would say that a country with a higher level of civilization has more obligation to be, you know, civilized.
No, they are different but they have equal rights to not be invaded. Bill Gates is not equal in his achievements or wealth to someone living in a trailer park but they both have the same right to life and freedom and they are both equal before the law. And behavior which might be excusable in someone living in a trailer park would not be excusable in Bill Gates.
That is a lie. A bald faced lie. It is not true. The entire world community as represented in the UN said there was no reason to invade. So don’t give me that shit that “everybody thought” there were WMD. It is a lie which I am tired of hearing. The only ones who thought so were the ones who wanted to think so.
I’d say they are flagrantly evil acts, yes. But when you look at the whole picture and arrive at a net effect, they were a definite good. I’m wary of the reluctance to do the math because I think it leads to inaction, even when it is warranted. But I think this is largely semantics. The question is, if faced with that decision, would one drop the bombs. It doesn’t get any tougher than that.