Sam, when will you cease scattering the same biased drivel?
Let’s see: bombastic unsupported claims, a pro-American anti-European position, “creative” shifting of blame … nice ingredients for a post.
Demonstrate once and for all that France and Russia’s anti-war position did not have “anything to do with a moral anti-war position on their part.” Demonstrate that they were only “serving their own interests”. You have failed repeatedly to demonstrate anything of the sort without recourse to glaring double standards, inaccurate information, and enough spin to whip your arms off into space.
Both France and Russia’s positions on Iraq were in accordance with international treaties, accords, agreements, etc., including the UN charter.
Furthermore, public opinion in both France and Russia was overwhelmingly against the war. So not only are the objections of France and Russia to date legitimate according to the UN Charter and similar documents, but it can also be said both countries expressed the democratic wishes of their populations – wishes based on the injustice of the US and UK approach to Iraq. Wishes based on what was “right” to do. Wishes based on a level of information more reliable than the worryingly dishonest US and UK administrations saw fit to build their case on.
So France and Russia may or may not have moral rectitude in mind – but you certainly have never proved that they didn’t. Maybe, get this, maybe they even acted in accordance with a moral anti-war position and with their own interests! Simultaneously! Go figure.
It’s quite sad when you repeat the same assertions and package them as if they are common knowledge (“I don’t think anyone can seriously look at the opposition of France and Russia and claim that it had anything to do with a moral anti-war position” – which is of course an obvious falsehood).
Well, I hate to defend Sam’s pooint but I am not sure I would disagree that any of hte actors – including the Bush Admin – was doing anything but looking out after perceived national interests.
I suppose that is somewhat diff. than Sam implying somehow France and Russia are bad actors, but …
I will interject, however, that we have no small goal post shifting insofar as the “regime change” (overthrowing governments in less Orwellian bureacratese) objectives of the Bush Admin were sold on entirely cynical uses of intel and threat mongering.
No disagreement there, I think I mentioned as much in my previous post. I don’t want to suggest that there isn’t Realpolitik in the situation – national interests are of course the primary and logical driver for any state. Sometimes, however, questionable actions in the pursuit of national interest are packaged as “the right thing” at the expense of other nations, some of which do appear to be engaged in “the right thing” themselves (whether because of honest goodwill or, again, national interests, or both).
Propaganda is what I object to, in other words, not so much propaganda direct from the state (which is a necessary and universal tool) but the parroting of articles of propaganda (not fact) in the forums – I am sure Sam knows better.
I think we are arguing different things here. The OP did not ask whether the actions were perceived to be imperialist or colonial, but whether or not they **are]/b]. If you changed “the Arabs” to “most Arabs” in your first sentence, I’d agree with it.
And as I said before, I don’t see any value in another thread devoted to whether the invasion of Iraq was justified or not. All the players here have stated their views multiple times in other threads-- there is no new ground being covered.
The US had imperialistic tendencies in the 19th century, but in the modern era, the imperialist powers that come to mind are NAZI Germnay and the USSR. Both added territory and fostered vassal states. One can argue about the “economic imperialism” of the US, but that’s a different animal. And while I do believe that the US has meddled too much in other countries internal affairs, we do not have the will as a people to maintain an “empire”. Vietnam is a good example of that.
What are you talking about? I’m addressing your leftist propaganda, and you are ignoring it.
I understand you like rewriting definitions when thye make you look wrong (like cynic).
The cold war was not between the US & USSR (although the USSR did assist the north vietnamese). it was through proxies.
Well thanks for repeating that, but it has nothign to do with what i was saying. I was addressing the fact that the Iraq sit. had no easy answer. Leaving Saddam in power and using impotent inspections might lead to a north korea type situation, but invading would lead to a diplomatic crisis.
that was in response to your fabricated propaganda that
“Ignoring that the US countenanced Saddam’s plan to invade Kuwait up until he executed it,”
countenanced; support or approval.
Since when does a high ranking officer admitting the US didn’t give approval constitute approval? Cynic.
yup. among other definitions i found;
person with pessimistic view of human nature.
A person whose outlook is scornfully and often habitually negative.
Cynic has multiple thesaurus definitions such as detractor or doubter, both of which apply to your views of the US. you calling not turning on power fast enough ‘human rights abuses’ for example would be an example of being a detractor.
detractor
(noun) person who criticizes unfairly.
by the way, my friend from college, her uncle is in Israel and he was approached by the US government before the war even ended to help restore power. They need electricians that speak Arabic. I hardly call not doing it fast enough for the cynics to be satiated (are they ever satiated?) a human rights abuse.
Well then you’re wrong because actions speak louder than words, and still a cynic. in Vietnam & Cambodia, the US killed millions of civilians. In Iraq we killed maybe 2-3k and avoided much more infrastructure than we would’ve destroyed had we used dumb bombs.
some of what you said in your original post counted as human rights abuses. but not turning on power fast enough following a war is not a human rights abuse, esp. not an intentional one. Accidnetally bombing civilians is still an accident.
No, and you’re not a cynic (which has mocker as one of its synonyms).
mocker : to treat with contempt or ridicule
Accidentall; Occurring unexpectedly, unintentionally, or by chance
I would say those deaths are unintentional. Unexpected & by chance are toss ups. i am not sure if those deaths are that. Deaths in general were expected, but virtually every individual injury was unexpected and unintentional
probably both. Vietnam destroyed the US’s credibility. Unneccesarily killing millions is bad for your repuation as a ‘protector of human rights’. Plus the US wants its wars to be quick (i’m assuming), Vietnam took 10 years and the US still didn’t win. Surgical strikes are quicker ways to win wars.
How do you know the Iraqi gov. didn’t shut those things down? If i recall correctly, the Ba’ath regime shut down water supply, not the US. And the ba’ath regime tried to blow a few oil wells. Destruction seems to have been part of their agenda. I notice you don’t blame the Iraqi government for that. figures.
detractor
(noun) person who criticizes unfairly.
I admit there is a basis for hatred of the US. we are bullying and more independent than most other nations. But when people say ‘the US isn’t morally superior to Iraq’ that shows bias. So does saying ‘not turning on power fast enough following a war is a human rights abuse’.
NATO is 19 countries. The US probably makes up 70% of their military machine, but the bombing was not US initiated, it was NATO initiated in response to use of force in Kosovo by the Yugoslav army.
Do you even care that the Yugoslav war was to stop ethnic cleansing?
i am not guilty of unthinking patriotism. You are implying the reason i disagree is because i am an idiot patriot. i am not. i disagree because you are a cynic (definition; perpetually negative and unfair) in regards to the US and i don’t share that viewpoint. I admit when the US fails in order to figure out what we do wrong and what to change.
No, saddam was. Remember him, the guy you indirectly wanted to keep in power when it mattered? Wait a year or 2, i’m sure the Iraqi people will have more money per capita than they do now.
I don’t know. Blair probably does i’m sure (he was willing to resign over the Iraqi affair).
Nope. i suggest you look up words like international law instead of just copying them off of articles on counterpunch.com. International law states a country can only go to war if they are fighting in self defense or have Security council approval. Why aren’t you upset over Russias invasion of Chechnya or Chinas invasion of Tibet? They are world powers and violating international law as well. That same argument was thrown around when NATO bombed Yugoslavia. In that war (just like this) the self professed protecters of human rights abandoned their principles when it gave them a platform to denounce the US. And international law didn’t crumble after 1999 (as if it ever existed).
In part, probably.
Yes. Facts speak louder than words. wait until amnesty international or the US state department does a report on human rights in Iraq in 2004, you will see.
The third myth that cannot be allowed to persist is perhaps the most widespread of all, the proposition that it is somehow hypocritical to act against Iraq when Israel is also “in breach” of UN resolutions. The attempt to imply some parity of guilt between Iraq and Israel is morally shameful and a wilfully blind misreading of the relevant UN resolutions. Iraq was in breach of Chapter 7 resolutions, which provide for military action to deal with threats to international peace and security. The resolutions which concern Israel are based on Chapter 6 of the UN Charter and they are non-binding recommendations for settling disputes. To bracket Iraq and Israel in the way that Robin Cook did is to suggest that there is a moral equivalence between a murderer and someone who is having difficulty with marriage guidance counselling.
:D. i sure did sunshine. I sat down with a cup of coffee and a notepad and that is what i came up with :wally
haha. Nobody will forget. Nobody. People have been looking for excuses to justify their hatred for the US for decades. I know for a fact you will never forget this, neither will billions of others.
the quote is
To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.
And it is probably referring to psycholgical warfare (breaking the enemies will so they surrender). Which the US did very well.
This is one of the dumbest responses i’ve ever made. having to look words up in the dictionary to get their definition right.
JM:Well, I think there is great value when debating to use words as much in [their] literal sense as possible.
Except when it has the effect of distancing them from their meanings in ordinary usage. If you want to argue that nobody should use the words “colonialist” or “imperialist” except with reference to explicit attempts to acquire or expand formally politically recognized colonies or empires, hey, you’re entitled to your opinion. But that strictly limited definition is inadequate to the commonly-understood meanings of “colonialist” and “imperialist” today.
By your restricted definition, hardly any international politics these days could be officially described as “colonialist” or “imperialist”, so we’d have to come up with a new term to describe policies of aggressive political dominance such as PNAC’s. We could do that, I suppose, but I prefer just to accept that the current usage of “colonialist” and “imperialist” has broadened since the heyday of formally recognized colonies and empires.
The OP did not ask whether the actions were perceived to be imperialist or colonial, but whether or not they are.
Actually, the OP was asking whether imperialism or colonialism is intrinsically bad. The only use of those words in the OP was in the question “By what moral standards is ‘imperialism’ or ‘colonialism’ always a bad thing?”
Actually, the title of this thread is: “Is M.E. imperialism necessarily bad?”
We’ll have to agree to disagree on this. Words have meanings. When I talk to my firends over coffee I’m a lot looser with meanings than when I’m particiapting in a debate such as this.
Note that all I said was that France and Russia were opposing the U.S. out of their own self interest. NOWHERE did I attempt to shift blame, praise America, or anything else. I don’t know where you got the blame-shifting bit - my post had nothing at all to do with assigning blame to anyone for anything.
Then Collounsbury said:
To which Abe responded:
No, it is NOT somewhat different. The difference is that Collounsbury said it, instead of me. I suggest that in your search for knee-jerk reactions, you start with yourself, Abe. I’m getting a little tired of being slammed for things I’ve never said. I even said right after the part you quoted that the whole issue of timing came down to Realpolitik. All countries claim to be serving the cause of truth and justice - and all countries use that as a rationale for acting in their own self-interest. I happen to agree with the invasion of Iraq, but that doesn’t mean I’m blind to how countries behave, including the United States.
And I’m already on record as stating that if it can be proved that the Bush administration lied about the existence of weapons of mass destruction, then Bush should be impeached. Just because I think the war was just and right does not mean that I can condone the leader of a democratic country lying to the people to drum up support for a war which they would otherwise oppose.
Next time, try attacking something I actually said, rather than something you wish I had said so you could attack it.
Israel has made its own bed and they are sleeping uncomfortably. That is another issue altogether.
As for the others that are directed primarily at the US, yes economic solvency will stop these attacks indirectly.
If America’s economy regains solvency, US interests will no longer have to resort to exploitation to retain some semblance of economic functionality. If the exploitation is ended then the exploitees, so to speak, will lose their animosity - admittedly it may take some time for it to completely clear up, but it will in a generation or so. Then the terrorism that is a reaction to perceived oppressive measures will go away. Understand?
Ah, yes. America’s economy only survives on the backs of the poor exploited masses. If America would just go away and stop being so evil as to actually buy goods from people who want to sell them, the world would be a happy place.
Sam, I don’t believe you bothered to read the posts thoroughly.
Not quite what you said. You explicitly stated and repeated that France and Russia were opposing the US solely out of self-interest and not for any other reason. It’s a ridiculous assertion and I explained why.
This must be seen in the context of the double standards you have been known to employ on these boards. According to you, for example, America didn’t go to war for oil, even though it has the most to gain from such a situation. Yet you asserted more than once that the only reason France and Russia opposed the war was to protect their financial interests in Iraq. Etc.
I was referring specifically to your earlier post. Let’s leave aside your assessment of France and Russia, which sounded suspiciously like a national rant. Instead, let’s look at this:
Meaning, unless I misread, that had the rest of the world or Security Council been a little more eager to follow the US lead of unwarranted aggression instead of trying to resolve the problem through legitimate means, Saddam would not have prepared his departure, WMDs would have been found, etc., etc.
It’s a similar line to the nonsense we’ve heard from the US and UK, who sought to ridicule UNMOVIC efforts as well as calls for a diplomatic solution, before and during the war.
I don’t believe you’re a stranger to those arguments.
I should point out you’re quoting Collounsbury, not me. I did not write the above, and my real response is rather different. You continue:
Now Sam, I hope you’re not accusing me of systematically knee-jerk slamming you for things you never said, because if you are a review of some of our posts is in order. And I don’t think such a review will support your thesis.
Let me also add that I clarified my position as regards Realpolitik both in the post addressed to you and in the follow-up to Collounsbury’s objections. Let me repeat: “France and Russia may or may not have moral rectitude in mind – but you certainly have never proved that they didn’t. Maybe, get this, maybe they even acted in accordance with a moral anti-war position and with their own interests!”
I don’t think I need to add more on this particular subject.
Sorry, must have missed the above, but I don’t think it’s absolutely crucial. I did see a high number of posts you made in recent months that were hardly “truth-friendly” : regarding the Arab world, regarding Europe and in particular France and Russia, and regarding also the correctitude of the American position when it was argued to be unnecessary, alarmist, war-mongering, and so forth.
I’m glad to hear that, but I think the problem goes rather deeper than just Bush – in fact I’d argue it’s the plentiful administration hawks who are to blame as much as or even more than the president for pushing this war. The view of the war as just and right has not, to my knowledge, been effectively argued. It’s one thing to say that Saddam is ousted and no longer tyrannizing people, which everyone will agree is a good thing. It’s quite another to claim that the appalling measures taken to achieve this goal make this a just or right war. (Note also that the US and UK shifted a lot of emphasis over to human rights when it appeared their anti-terrorist and alarmist platforms were not gathering sufficient support – but the world didn’t really buy the human rights angle any more than they bought the alarmist angle).
Perhaps I’m guilty of reading in your words too much from some of your previous posts and arguments, and perhaps your position here differs in certain ways from the context of your existing posts as I understand it – in that case you have my apologies. But I believe the meat of my objections is sound, that is, the factual side of the argument as opposed to propaganda items repeated or hinted over and over.
Sam, much of what you slammed was my quick and I admit clusmy gloss, I am sorry about that, it was not intentional.
I do wish to surprisingly perhaps but strongly disagree with you.
I do not think Bush should be impeached at all, should it be possible (and it would not be I am sure) to prove he lied about the NBC materials. It is cleally an offence for which someone should be voted out of office. But I am extremely reluctant to support the idea of pursing Presidents to impeachment on FP lies.
Well… I can certainly see all kinds of problems with it, to be sure. Dragging the intelligence community through the impeachment process would probably be destructive, and I have severe doubts that Bush would be so stupid as to leave himself vulnerable to that charge.
If the administration DID want to trump up charges against Iraq to give them cover for an attack, it would be done in a much more sophisticated way, like planting information into intelligence channels very far down the chain so that anyone above the rank-and-file has deniability.
Let me state that I don’t think this is a likely scenario. If it turns out that the intelligence was wrong, it won’t be because it was grossly faked. It’ll be more subtle than that – downplaying the significant of evidence that works against your case, and emphasizing evidence that supports it in order to skew the ‘big picture’. Tactics like that are deniable - you can always just say, “In our judgement, this was more critical than that.”
All I can say is, if it turns out that there are no WMD, and no credible evidence that they were there when U.S. intel said they were, then I will be very disappointed in that administration.
Just a few minutes to make a few comments. I don’t have time to bite deep, but I need to point out two things.
I disagree with some of the views put forward by calculus in his reply to lander2k2, but I must ask the latter if he has not let emotional involvement get the better of his arguments. Many of the accusations he levels at the US are too broadly or excessively stated (although there is some truth in them, quite a few seem exaggerated or manipulated to fit the argument).
Anyway, two things I had issues with–there are more but I have no time:
There is no evidence to suggest UNMOVIC’s efforts were impotent, in spite of all the propaganda issued by the US and by the UK on this matter. I’ll leave it at that rather than speculate about a N.Korea-like development and so forth.
Actually it wasn’t really. Ethnic cleansing was occurring in Kosovo by then, but NATO response was to bomb Serbia – a campaign against Milosevic or against Serbs, but not to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, or not a very effective one anyway. Peace keepers are far more effective at putting an end to ethnic cleansing than bombs, after all (by the way, OSCE monitors had to scramble out of the way before the bombs started falling, leaving Serb forces with freedom to commit atrocities).
Also please remember the Serbia/Kosovo matter was far from a clear or straightforward matter. Eight years before the NATO bombing, Milosevic revoked Kosovo’s autonomy. Eventually ultra-nationalist Albanian mafia in Kosovo (the KLA, an outfit I cannot believe was treated seriously by the West) started systematically assassinating Serb policemen in Kosovo, and made demands for independence (of historically Serbian land), failing to include Serbs in their future picture of Kosovo, and taking part in an escalation in which ethnic Albanian fighters resorted to terrorist/guerrilla tactics, hiding among the rest of the population.
Not to excuse the tactics employed by Serbia (including apartheid-style separation and the suppression of cultural and political rights – reminds me of the Israel problem in some ways), but the KLA was gunning for a Kosovo free of Serbs and Serbian influence, which is just as problematic. And be aware that the Serbian population – the people who ended up getting bombed for this, since the bombing campaign was comparatively ineffectual against the armed forces-- the Serbian population was largely unaware of Milosevic’s actions. Milosevic had a significant propaganda machinery in place that is still yielding surprises.
I’ll also add that both cluster bombs and depleted uranium ammunitions were used aplenty in Serbia, and the infrastructure was explicitly targeted.
Finally, the bombing of Serbia was US-led. It was the US who initially called for air strikes rather than engage in ground operations. The bombing was also primarily a US effort – some NATO European nations eventually agreed, sure, but let’s remember how pitiful their air capabilities were/are compared to American ones.
A difficult matter, and not one of the brightest pages in American or European history by any means, especially if we consider Serbia’s traditional ties and alliance with the West: let’s not forget that in WWII Croatia had its own extremely nasty version of Nazis working with the Axis and resisted by Serbs; or look at how Yugoslavia under Tito played the USSR.
Finally:
This is not the case, unless you mean that in any given population the above will normally take place among some of the people, perhaps the hypocrites but hardly “self-professed protectors of human rights”. If you mean that anti-war thinking concerning Iraq relies on the abandonment of principles and so forth, I don’t believe you have a case.
I can’t say that I’ve been able to leave emotional response out of the argument altogether. I’m only human. I do hold contempt for certain policies and practices and while it would be best if I left the contempt out in stating a case, it doesn’t always happen that way.
I concede that I may have made statements that seemed too broad or excessive. I am restrained by time in explaining the details of what I am referring to. However, if you bring up something specific that you felt was too broadly or excessively stated, I’ll see what I can do to explain my view on it better. I am happy for my accusations to be contended. Maybe I’m wrong on some of them.