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

[MegaTrain]

Originally posted by dogscoff:

quote:

---

We (in the US) largely view this as a question of "right and wrong", "good vs evil".

I think many (most?) of the protesters see Bush vs Saddam as "evil vs evil." I certainly do.

---

I don't doubt that for a second--but what it tells me is that much of the opposition to this war is partisan. It is actually opposition to Bush as an individual and the republicans. Where were these people when Clinton was bombing Iraq? I know there were some who have consistently opposed military action by any president, but the vast numbers of democrats who supported Clinton's military campaigns but oppose Bush's is simply astounding.

"This president failed so miserably in diplomacy that we are now forced to war."
--Tom Daschle, 2003, when President Bush struck Iraq
"We have exhausted all of our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that . . . we have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily."
--Tom Daschle, in 1998, when President Clinton struck Iraq

Not all Democrats support Daschle, of course, but his statements are a largely accurate picture of the positions taken by the Democratic party leadership in 1998 and in 2003.

[dogscoff]

I don't doubt that for a second--but what it tells me is that much of the opposition to this war is partisan.

No, not really. Remember that the vast majority of the opposition is from *outside* the US, and so couldn't give a toss about US internal politics and partisanship. (except where it effects foreign policy.)

It is actually opposition to Bush as an individual and the republicans. Where were these people when Clinton was bombing Iraq?

Well, that's a good point I suppose. There certainly has been consisitent opposition, but nothing on the scale we see now. I don't think that makes the current protesters hypocritical though. For one thing, the bombing and sanctions against Iraq until this latest episode have not been specifically US, but more of an international thing (or at least perceived as such). Furthermore, it's not the same as actually invading a country for such cynical motivations.

I know there were some who have consistently opposed military action by any president, but the vast numbers of democrats who supported Clinton's military campaigns but oppose Bush's is simply astounding.

Like I say, as someone who has never even been to the US I am neither a democrat nor a republican. To be honest I find it very hard to actually tell the difference from over here. America just keeps on being America no matter who has the keys to the whitehouse.

So opposition to Bush for the sake of his party is nonsense. Opposition to the individual though, is entirely true and entirely valid and justified: He has the world's only superpower at his command and he doesn't care what or who he f**ks up in order to make money.

Sure, the world is full of politicians like that, but it's not often you see one taking it to these extremes. I'm not sure what he's got that lets him get away with it (although I think his manipulation of 9/11 has a lot to do with that) but there are plenty of people in this world who see him as a monster that has to be stopped. We've already seen the parallels drawn between Bush and 1930s Hitler. I really hope they turn out to be nothing more than a coincidence.

Here's something to think about: I wonder if this was inevitable after the fall of the Soviet Union- does anyone think that without a balancing force to keep it in check, the US was bound to go on the rampage like this?

[ April 16, 2003, 16:13: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

[MegaTrain]

Originally posted by dogscoff:
So opposition to Bush for the sake of his party is nonsense. Opposition to the individual though, is entirely true and entirely valid and justified: He has the world's only superpower at his command and he doesn't care what or who he 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??
If these positions are held by more than a handful around the world then that is some scary sh**, and doesn't bode well for the future of the planet.

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.

A couple of points:
1) Motivation of individuals is both impossible to determine and largely irrelevant. There are plenty of situations where good motivations have led to evil actions or policies (communism), or selfish motivation has lead to good results (capitalism).

I happen to believe that Bush is motivated by a desire to protect the US of today and for our children from terrorism and WMD, and a desire to rid the world and the Iraqi citizens of an evil oppressive regime. You don't belive that to be true, but as I said motivation is not the key issue.

2) The ACTIONS of the US now and throughout history is what needs to be judged--and I'm the first to say that our record isn't spotless. But I definitely agree with the following address by Colin Powell: (in response to a question by the former Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, about the US relying too much on "Hard Power" of military might vs the "Soft Power" of diplomacy")

The United States believes strongly in what you call soft power, the value of democracy, the value of the free economic system, the value of making sure that each citizen is free and free to pursue their own God-given ambitions and to use the talents that they were given by God. And that is what we say to the rest of the world. That is why we participated in establishing a community of democracy within the Western Hemisphere. It's why we participate in all of these great international organizations.

There is nothing in American experience or in American political life or in our culture that suggests we want to use hard power. But what we have found over the decades is that unless you do have hard power -- and here I think you're referring to military power -- then sometimes you are faced with situations that you can't deal with.

I mean, it was not soft power that freed Europe. It was hard power. And what followed immediately after hard power? Did the United States ask for dominion over a single nation in Europe? No. Soft power came in the Marshall Plan. Soft power came with American GIs who put their weapons down once the war was over and helped all those nations rebuild. We did the same thing in Japan.

So our record of living our values and letting our values be an inspiration to others I think is clear. And I don't think I have anything to be ashamed of or apologize for with respect to what America has done for the world.

We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the Last hundred years and we’ve done this as recently as the Last year in Afghanistan and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in, and otherwise we have returned home to seek our own, you know, to seek our own lives in peace, to live our own lives in peace. But there comes a time when soft power or talking with evil will not work where, unfortunately, hard power is the only thing that works.

Ultimately, we will have to wait and see who's view of the current situation will play out. Will the US "take over" Iraqi oil production and reap vast wealth from them? Will the US occupy Iraq indefinitely? Will it become the 51st US State??

My views:
Oil $$: the Iraqi oil $$ will be used to rebuild that country, and may not be sufficient to do so. We have already spent billions, and the US taxpayers will likely pour billions more into Iraq in aid, rebuilding, and keeping the peace while a leadership structure is determined. This is not and cannot possibly be a profitable action for the US.

US Occupation: We will be there as long as we need, and no longer. We will likely maintain a military base in Iraq indefinitely, but certainly you don't view that as "occupation of the country", otherwise we'd be "occupying" many dozens of countries throughout the world.

[jimbob]

Hmmm...

Seems to me that Jesus was born into a war-torn and forcibly occupied land - sort of like Iraq, Palestine (though it's not a country yet), Afghanistan, Liberia, etc etc. Isreal had been undergoing civil unrest since the military conquest of the land by the Greeks right up until the Maccabees, and then went to war when the Romans arrived. Having been under various foreign dictators for a good long time, it has been estimated that at the time of Jesus birth a good 20% of capable men had been killed by foreign occupiers in one way or another (via out-and-out war, uprisings, civil disobedience, etc)

Then there were the ones who continued to want to overthrow the Romans, the Zealots. Jesus had at least one (two I think) of this political persuasion in his closest knit group, but yet he consistantly avoided proclaiming for or against the Romans. Instead he stressed the need for internal spiritual renewal, which could only be brought about by (i) repentance from sin, (2) acceptance of himself, and (3) worship of God.

So what would Jesus do? He'd likely move to a smaller outlying town outside of Baghdad and proclaim that, regardless of the circumstances, every member of humankind is duty bound to turn back to God. Would he pretend to like Sadam? No, I doubt this, because Jesus mocked the political leaders of his time. Would he encourage revolt? I think he wouldn't, because another rebellion - the one in people's hearts - was more important to him.

Now that's what I think Jesus would do. Does that mean that no followers of Jesus should ever enter politics or pursue positions of power? I personally don't think that Jesus would have a problem with people choosing one of these "lesser careers" vs. what he and his cousin did (essentially evangelism). There is at least one example of a Roman centurian coming to Jesus for help, and Jesus helped him. At no point did Jesus tell him to leave the army though...

Well, that's my biblical scholarship for the day Take it for what it's worth, I'm a microbiologist, not a priest.

Edit: OOOPS. I was a little behind and reading on page two, then decided to post a reply. I didn't realize that the discussion had moved on from WWJD and back to the evil that is Bush. Sorry if my "out of the blue" response confused anyone.

Edit2: and Askan, I'm sorry about your alergic reaction to anything g*d related. You really should see a specialist about that

[ April 16, 2003, 17:18: Message edited by: jimbob ]

[Baron Munchausen]

Originally written by Dogscoff:
Here's something to think about: I wonder if this was inevitable after the fall of the Soviet Union- does anyone think that without a balancing force to keep it in check, the US was bound to go on the rampage like this?

Well, there are some interesting assumptions in this. Ask some Latin Americans, especially from Central America, if the US hasn't been 'on the rampage' since well before there was a Soviet Union to 'balance' it...

But yes, a pretty well established law of psychology is that you become what you dwell on, and whether you dwell on it in admiration or opposition does not matter. After more than 2 decades of fear and loathing of 'communists' prior to WW II and then a bit more than 4 more decades of direct opposition in the 'Cold War' we do have a pretty well entrenched habit in the US institutions (and society! ) of viewing the external world in a militaristic way as something needing to be controlled. But even before this, as the Central Americans will tell you, we already had pretty noticeable Imperialistic tendencies.

So on the one hand, I'd say yes it was fairly predictable that the US would become more difficult to live with once the 'Big Enemy' was gone and all that energy was freed up from opposition to one target. But on the other hand we were never a very good neighbor, and advanced technology has made everyone neighbors in the contemporary world.

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? (The French bashing in the UK was certainly not any less than it was here.) Or is it just possible that the 'far right' segment of the British political spectrum wants ro reclaim Imperial glory by proxy, in alliance with the US? Under a similar 'rationalization' of defending against those evil terrorists, of course. This seems to be a phenomena sweeping the English speaking world. There are major anti-immigrant sentiments in Australia as well. And they were one of very few nations other than the US and Britain to send actual combat troops to Iraq. We may see the development of a US/British/Australian axis along the lines of George Orwell's Oceana...

[ April 16, 2003, 17:33: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

[Fyron]

Originally posted by Askan Nightbringer:
Fyron, before the Florida debacle would you have said that the people of America would never had sat idly by and let that sort of thing happen? If that happened in Australia I don't think I could ever talk about our democracy with a straight face.

Askan

Let what sort of thing happen? Gore and crew whine for weeks about losing fair and square?

[jimbob]

Waaayyy OT but,

Seems to me that Florida has a pretty dumb voting system. We've got a "complete the arrow" system in Canada. The poll-operators give you a pencil, you go to the booth, and then select your candidate by filling in the correct broken arrow with said pencil. No hanging chits, no accidental chit removals, etc.

That said, a teacher in Florida made a test for grade 1 students in which they identified their favorite cartoon character using the chit system, and not a single error in his class! Does this indicate that the problem isn't with the system, but with the voter? Perhaps the "debacle" isn't with the system or the electee, perhaps the debacle is the electorate.

[ April 16, 2003, 20:01: Message edited by: jimbob ]

[Fyron]

Well the whiners were mostly complaining about senile old people that couldn't figure out how to use the self-explanatory ballot...

[Cyrien]

I don't think you can take a single class that most likely is composed of less than 100 children and say that that is proportional to bad election results in an state of millions where only thousands of ballots where off. Percentage wise the number of off ballots was quite small. The problem was that the race was so damn close that those small numbers off could throw it one way or another.

People put way too much emphasis on the whole ballot thing. Missed results etc happen everywhere at almost every election, but it only gets attention when the election is decided because of it.

[MegaTrain]

But those small numbers ALWAYS threw it TOWARD Bush and not Gore. EVERY vote count and re-count that was done, including by different media outlets at later times said that BUSH was the victor.

And I shudder to think what it would have been like with Gore in the White House after September 11.