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

[Baron Munchausen]

Yes, Hitler is everyone's favorite demon these days. There is some validity in comparing the program set forth in Mein Kampf with the PNAC papers, but the additional baggage of Hitler's outright depravity makes people not already convinced that Bush is evil unwilling to consider the comparison. It would be better to compare him to saner, if equally ruthless and efficient, conquerors and manipulators. Bismark, who built up 19th century Germany from the base of Prussia example -- or Frederick II ('the Great') who built up Prussia as a military power a century earlier -- if we are sticking to Germans. But of course the Germans have no monopoly on this sort of personality. They were just conveniently close enemies over the Last few centuries and so are remembered more readily. The two French examples that come immediately to mind were more opportunists than 'methodical plotters' -- Napoleon and his relative Napoleon III. But then there is the 'Sun King' Louis IV who wanted all the royal houses of Europe united under his throne. Going back a bit further in history provides lots of European rulers of the same stripe as the corporate Robber Barons that currently form the ruling US oligarchy.

We've had more than a few US Presidents of the same sort as GWB, you know. The people who reach that office are almost always the servants of the Robber Barons if not members of that class themselves, as GWB is. We have been regularly invading various nations in Central American all through the previous century, usually to protect business interests. McKinley found a convenient excuse for the Spanish War in 1898 through the 'fortunate accident' of the Maine. Remember the Maine? Spain was a decrepit remnant of an empire and easily defeated, of course. We got our first over-seas colonies out of that war, Cuba and the Phillipines. Somehow or other Cuba slipped away. I don't recall how that occured. And Hawaii was annexed around the same time though I forget the exact date. The native government had been over-thrown by corporate invaders who wanted their fruit plantations to be under US jurisdiction. A few years later Teddy Roosevelt conveniently had a fleet standing by to support Panama's declaration of independence from Colombia so he could build that canal. A somewhat 'grander' motive than protecting fruit plantations or rubber plantations or strip mines, I guess, but still no more legitimate than Britain would have been in supporting the South during the Civil War to ensure cotton supplies for their industries.

So Bush wielding US military power to extend corporate power is actually not at all unusual as US Presidents go. We've just grown used to the Cold War posture of 'defending the free world' and forgotten what the US government has historially been most concerned with -- siezing territory and resources to insure profits.

[ April 17, 2003, 20:23: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

[geoschmo]

Baron, you left out the part about the US being nothing but occupied territory stolen from the Native Americans. If we want to be technical I suppose the only territory the US has that they didn't take from someone else is the lunar surface. We have a legitimate claim to that I suppose since we were the first to land actual people there (Not just robotic probes) and noone else has been there since. I guess there is room there for all 400 million of us. TIme to relocate...

[Cyrien]

I second that motion! Let's all of us U.S. People leave this planet and take the Moon. After that we can do some legit expansions to the rest of the planets.

[raynor]

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
[QB]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.

I'm not so sure about that. I'm confident the United States would find some way of passing such a resolution but exempting Israel.

[DavidG]

Am I the only one that is getting a bit tired of hearing people say "what about Israel's WMD's"
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think there are many differences between Israel and Iraq or even Syria. Like a) they are a stable democaracy, b) the have a proven track record of 'using' WMD's as a deterent only, c) they do not openly sponser Jewish terrorists in their neighbouring states, d) they have never launched a war against their neighbours for the sole purpose of destroying that nation. e) they are surrounded by states that would like to see them annialated (and have tried that several times).
I'm sure the list could go on and on.

[Some1]

Originally posted by DavidG:
Am I the only one that is getting a bit tired of hearing people say "what about Israel's WMD's"
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think there are many differences between Israel and Iraq or even Syria. Like a) they are a stable democaracy, b) the have a proven track record of 'using' WMD's as a deterent only, c) they do not openly sponser Jewish terrorists in their neighbouring states, d) they have never launched a war against their neighbours for the sole purpose of destroying that nation. e) they are surrounded by states that would like to see them annialated (and have tried that several times).
I'm sure the list could go on and on.

a) They have a democracy... but democracies are not "stable" , dictatorships are stable...
Thats why i do not really believe GWB wants a democracy there.

b) i have no knowledge about if they used WMD.

c) This is your opinion. To palistine (& a lot of other) people the gouverment itself is terrorist (wrong).

d) true, but the making of the state israel was a bit different then "normal"... I don't know what would happen if Native Americans would take a part of the USA (like....texas) and that US would do nothing against it (Same as everywhere on the world for that matter)... Difficult to judge.

e) That is not the general goal anymore. Only those extremists want Israel dead... just like those extremist jews (who do nothing but read the bible all day) want all those palistine dead.
I "think" that if you ask the normal people in the region they just want peace... (Not those extremists that only get airtime, because they are more interesting to film)

R

[ April 18, 2003, 08:18: Message edited by: Some1 ]

[Fyron]

a) They have a democracy... but democracies are not "stable" , dictatorships are stable...
Thats why i do not really believe GWB wants a democracy there.

Let's see... US has oldest democracy in the world. US is one of the most stable nations in the world. Hmm... what conclusion can be drawn... certainly not democracy is inherently unstable...

[Some1]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Let's see... US has oldest democracy in the world. US is one of the most stable nations in the world. Hmm... what conclusion can be drawn... certainly not democracy is inherently unstable...[/QB]

Is that so? I see RADICAL policy changes in just 3-4 years... (and not only becuz of 9-11), since GWB came to office.

That's not stable... IMHO

R.

[raynor]

Originally posted by Some1:
Is that so? I see RADICAL policy changes in just 3-4 years... (and not only becuz of 9-11), since GWB came to office.

That's not stable... IMHO

R.

Like what?

[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by Some1:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Let's see... US has oldest democracy in the world. US is one of the most stable nations in the world. Hmm... what conclusion can be drawn... certainly not democracy is inherently unstable...

Is that so? I see RADICAL policy changes in just 3-4 years... (and not only becuz of 9-11), since GWB came to office.

That's not stable... IMHO

R.[/QB]

---

It was 8 of the Last 10 years that were the anomaly. The so called “Return to Camelot” put us
right in the cross hairs, just like the first one did. Only difference was that the opposition was
not a super power this time. The rest of the world sees a kinder more gentle America as weak.
And they make their policy accordingly.