[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

[Thermodyne]

Since this is degenerating into a Bush vs. Gore event, you guys should do your home work first.
It was not BillyBob that was on the Republican hit list. Go back and check the congressional
staff list from the Watergate hearings. Power players in DC have long memories, and are seldom know to set aside a grudge. And DC playbacks can develop into a hell all of their own. Mr. Gore was in a catch 22. He needed to distance himself from a president who got caught lying to his people, but in so doing would have left a large part of his inherited base behind also.

As to the election, the electoral college has been part of American Presidential elections for a
very long time. For a looser to challenge it after an election would indicate that the candidate was particularly unsuited to hold the office. As for the challenging of the count, many candidates have been advised to challenge results in the past, but with one exception, all of them felt that the good of the country was more important. All but one choose unity over litagation.

[ April 17, 2003, 02:42: Message edited by: Thermodyne ]

[Fyron]

Fyron, I think you might need to chill out a bit.

Well sorry if I have little respect for people when they just spit out the same old tired propaganda...

I think you people need to realize that I am not a Republican nor much of a Bush supporter...

[dogscoff]

f**ks up in order to make money.
(snip)
...monster that has to be stopped...
...parallels drawn between Bush and 1930s Hitler...
...the US was bound to go on the rampage...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OMG do you actually belive this??

Yes, and you'd better believe I'm not the only one. I'm not some radical islamic fundamentalist, either- I'm a pretty normal, liberal-minded European guy with a home and a job and a regular life.

I admit I haven't read all 95 pages of this thread, but I really can't imagine a defensible argument saying that Bush and Hitler are moral equivalents.

There was an excellent article posted about a month ago which summarised the similarities. It was frightening. I'll try to dig it out but it won't be easy.
EDIT: Finallly, I found it. Click here for Bush/ Hitler comparison.

The main similarities are in Bush's (and Blair's) use of a specific terrorist incident to create a non-specific perceived threat, and generate an atmosphere of fear and distrust among the public, which in turn allows them to go on bombing sprees abroad, violate human rights (illegal arrest/ detention) and introduce anti-freedom / anti-privacy legislation in the name of "national security".

but as I said motivation is not the key issue.

I think motivation is absolutely the key issue. You are being led by a man who is prepared to start a war and cause thousands of deaths in order to increase his own personal profits, and that doesn't bother you? It should be your interests he is serving, not his own.

2) The ACTIONS of the US now and throughout history is what needs to be judged--

Yes, the ACTIONS of the US. The actions of the USA (and UK) since Bush came to power have been catastrophic.

From Colin Powell: "It's why we participate in all of these great international organizations."

HA!

There is nothing in American experience or in American political life or in our culture that suggests we want to use hard power.

Again, HA!

Will the US "take over" Iraqi oil production and reap vast wealth from them?
...

Oil $$: the Iraqi oil $$ will be used to rebuild that country, and may not be sufficient to do so.

It's more subtle than simply going in and stealing Iraq's wealth. It has long been understood by most powermongers that invading, conquering and annexing other countries is politically incorrect, and risky business indeed.

Iraqi oil will be used by Iraqi people to rebuild Iraq, yes. That was always the plan. What is now coming to light is that nearly all that rebuilding (an estimatedd 100billion dollars' worth) will be contracted out to US companies with very close links to Bush and his cronies. Oh, and apparently they've been planning for all this since before 9/11. Now can you see why I'm so cynical?

But you seem to have ignored my earlier question about the direction of British politics. Do you really think Britain is more strongly allied with Europe than the US?

Culturally, I think the Brits are closer to Europe than the US, so we ought to be heading that way. Unfortunately, because of the language thing, most people here don't realise that and lean toward the US. Blair has always tried to show himself as pro-european, but now he has his head up Bush's arse. Of course the two shouldn't be mutually exclusive, but really I think they are.

I have no idea where Blair will go or what he'll do next. I used to think I had an idea about what he wants and what's going on in his head, but his motivations are a mystery to me now. He's constantly contradicting himself, saying one thing while doing another... add to that the cocoon of spin and bull**** he has woven about himself and he is utterly opaque. He won't ever be getting my vote again. (And I'll never vote tory- too corrupt.)

Personally I think the best thing for this country would be to extend the boundaries of London a couple hundred miles north and west so that Ken Livingstone (Mayor of London) is in charge of the entire country. He has his flaws but I believe he is at least uncorrupted and working for the good of the people he represents. That's the best you can ask from a politician, and the one thing you never seem to get...

(The French bashing in the UK was certainly not any less than it was here.)

I would disagree with that, unless the US franch-bashing was very mild.

Maybe the motivations for it are wrong. But you can do the right things for the wrong reasons, you just have to make sure those wrong reasons don't taint the process.

Impossible. As soon as you do anything like that for the wrong reasons, the process becomes irrevocably tainted. Motivation is everything.

[ April 17, 2003, 11:31: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

[tesco samoa]

From Daily Kos

Syria countermoves, scores against US
The US continues its bizarre on-again, off-again war of words against Syria. Seriously, do a Google News search for "Syria" and "US", and get headlines like:

No Plans for war on Syria: US
US renews its attack on Syria
US 'would enter Syria for Saddam'
US will not cross Syrian border to hunt Saddam
So who the hell knows who will come out ahead what is obviously a power-struggle at the top of the Bush Administration.

But Syria is more self-assured than Saddam's sanction-weakend Iraq -- not driven by ethnic divisions, not in violation of UN resolutions, possessing a strong and relatively modern military, effective control of various battle-tested milita/terrorist Groups, strong support from Russia and Iran, a reluctant and suddenly gun-shy UK, and the sudden de facto leadership of the Arab world (a position Syria obviously relishes).

And while Iraq wielded the propaganda tool clumsily, Syria is proving a far better foe. It's latest move, tactically brilliant, is to introduce a Security Council resolution calling for the elimination of all WMDs in the Middle East.

The move comes as some in the US side scream about Syria's alleged WMDs. Thus Syria's move is nothing short of genius. If the US is truly serious about ridding the Middle East of WMDs, it should have no problem endorsing a resolution that would compell Syria to disarm. Right?

Wrong. The resolution would have the (intentional) effect of forcing Israel to surrender its nuclear arsenal -- a course of action Israel would never accept. And the US, Israel's most loyal ally, will thus be forced to veto the resolution.

So picture this -- the US vetoing a resolution calling for the banning of all WMDs from the Middle East. In one fell swoop, Syria has negated the charges of WMDs against it, exposed the US's hypocrisy on WMDs (our allies can have them, everyone else can't), solidified its leadership of the Arab world, and forced the US to veto a seemingly common sense resolution, after bLasting France and Russia for threatening vetoes on Iraq.

It's clear that this administration has zero ability to wage a competent foreign policy. We may be able to wage war, but even that has its limits.

Don't think the links made it... Oh well....

[tesco samoa]

interesting article

http://argument.independent.co.uk/co...p?story=397925

Read it with a grain of salt.

[tesco samoa]

Hey Dogscoff perhaps (PNAC) website will read like My Struggle 80 years from now.....

[primitive]

Tesco,
First post: LOL great one.
The ability of the GWB administration to paint themselves into a corner is remarkable.

Second post: Even with a large spoonfull of salt, that article has some valuable lessons in it.
Even if everything goes as planned (assuming there is a plan) and an new "democratic" Iraqi goverment is put in place, there will be millions of Iraqi who have good reasons to hate the US. There are many reasons, like loved ones killed, businesses and homes destroyed or loss of power and status for those who benefited from the old regime. It will be easy picking for those who are recruiting terrorists in Iraq for decades to come. I fear this war will not be remembered as a war against terrorism, but as a great boost to it.

[dogscoff]

Just out of interest I did a google search for PNAC+"mein kampf".

Got some interesting results, although everything on the first page seems to be quoted from the same source.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...2mein+kampf%22

---
Edit: fixed link

[ April 17, 2003, 15:56: Message edited by: Suicide Junkie ]

[Cyrien]

Impossible. As soon as you do anything like that for the wrong reasons, the process becomes irrevocably tainted. Motivation is everything.

Then I suppose that everything that humans has ever done is tainted, which would go a long way to explaining the world and its conditions.

Do you believe that anyone in a position of power does anything without some personal gain?
The argument could even be made that all people perform all actions with something to gain.

Saints and the like? Theres is the ultimate selfish motivation. Do good and get the ultimate reward, or do bad and get the ultimate punishment. Heaven vs Hell. What choice do you make?

Also there are social pressures at work. If you do good, people admire that if you do bad they don't and may even start to hate you.

I cannot accept the position that motivation is everything. If that is true then some truly horrific acts that were done for "good purposes" are acceptable. Motivation being everything holds forth the motto that the Ends always justify the means. That leads to a taint and corruption of the goal.

In my world action always speaks louder than words, or thought.

To sum it all up to do the good thing for the wrong reason is far better than to do the wrong thing for the right reason.

As for Bush and Hitler... don't make me laugh.
You want to talk terrorist attacks... ok. Show that Bush was the mastermind of 9/11 and then I might accept a parrallel there. I could go on and on like this but it just isn't worth it.

I most assuredly do not support Bush. But demonizing him (as comparisons of him and Hitler most assuredly do) is neither accurate nor usefull. If I wanted to I could draw up a list of accurate similarities between Hitler and just about every world leader currently out there and almost all of the past U.S. presidents. Violations of human rights? Using a major event as an excuse for something? Please. Don't be so naive. There are literally thousands if not millions of examples of world leaders of every walk of life doing just that on one scale or another.

I think this will most likely be my Last post to this topic. Not much point in arguing over something that so many people already have their mind made up about. Same reasons I don't generally argue religion.

[Wardad]

Get the Iraqi 'Most-Wanted' Deck of Playing Cards.

http://www.greatusaflags.com/

[ April 17, 2003, 17:32: Message edited by: Wardad ]