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.
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”.
Except that he HAD already begun his reign of terror, even as the United States was still backing him. Cite
From the BBC site I linked to:
“The campaign against the Kurds of Iraq in the late 1980’s, known as the Anfral (or spoils in Arabic), was pusued at a time when Iraq was an ally of Washington and the U.K.”
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.”
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.