also phyx,
the assertation that killing and war only breeds killing and more war(i'm assuming you mean it does zero good) would be highly contested by many holocaust vistims for whom an invasion was there salvation. You can add to that the slaves in our own country who were freed because of a war. Plus the aforementioned muslims in the former Yugoslavia who were being killed. I bet there are a lot of people in Rwanda who wish that a military action would have taken place in their country and then maybe a little less than a million people would have been slaughtered there. that itself is an instance where i regret our "terrorist"(by your definition) soldiers had not gone in with guns blazing.

I'd also like to clarify the isssue with the Taliban. They were never recognized as a country by ANY country in the world. They were rejected a seat at the UN they were so barbaric. No one knew what to do with them they were so bloodthirsty with militant Islam. I find it hard to believe that anyone could have regrets about going in and doing what we did. there were extraordinarily few casualties from collateral damage. Less than any conflict in the last century. In fact, the people who bitch and moan that we never caught Osama in that country fail to realize that every operation there was hamstrung by our concern for killing civillians. every movement of people had to be relayed back to intelligence before they were fired upon and in the end, a lot of terrorists got away when they should have been gunned down.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html...B8CDDAA0894DB404482

Edited by author 04-11-2003 01:45 AM
first off, its like we're in a room with each other here. heh heh.

real quick until later:
Phyx, i hate that poll about ameriucans linking Iraq to Saddam Hussein. Everyone i have ever met knows they weren't involved with that event(although there are a couple individuals in the US right now putting forth cases that Iraq might have been involved with the Oklahoma city bombing - i know its hard to believe off the bat, but you should read some of their evidence). as for equating the jubiilation over 9/11 with that of the invasion of Iraq - that is not a fair analogy. the people in our country weren't cheering over 9/11. understand - this is a regime that TORTURES on a wide scale my friend. I do not feel sorry for the paramilitary and fayahdeen(sp?) from the Baath party if they are killed(al Jazeera has been showing crews removing body parts from bombed buildings and claiming they were civillians when those headquarters were full of the Baath regime). those animals unleashed a reign of teror in that country for over 30 years. it is like saying i feel bad about SS troopers who were killed in WWII fighting. Please.

the anti war party is reluctant to support ANY military action in regard to a dictator. it is plain and simple PATHETIC. are you mad about Slobodan Milosovic? Are you ready to rally for his release?
 No? Well Saddam Hussein is ten times as worse. There are Bosnian Serbs who will tell you straight up that the day the bombs started falling - they felt liberated. After that kind of a confession - your argument doesn'ty have a leg to satnd on. A military action is NECESSARY and JUSTIFIED when not only does he slaughter his own people, bbut he stockpiles weapons that are inb their very capability meant to kill people outside his country.

Don't you see the IDEALISTIC and UNREALISTIC stance you are taking. it is the same on taken by most of Europe in 1939 and it is called "appeasement".


Lord - I'll get to you tomorrow. I'm bushed.

Thanks Horn, this discussion has made me think a lot about my position on this issue :) We haven't changed each other's minds, but I hope we're all learning something.

When I brought up the fact that the US has had cooperation with Irak in the 80's, I wanted to point out the fact that he was still a dictator back then. And at that time in history, the US did not choose to remove him from power. That makes me feel that the "let's free the Iraki people" is just a side story in this war. It is used as a justification for this war but if it was truly at the heart of this conflict, then Hussein would have been removed from power a long time ago.

But that doesn't only target the US. As you pointed out, (and to my short limited knowledge on this issue), no country has ever submited a "let's remove the dictator in Irak" to the UN. From my brief searches on the internet, I get the feeling that most countries feel that it is an "internal Iraki affair" and should be left to the iraki people to solve.

This reminds me of the Star Trek prime directive of non-interferance. No matter how well justified the cause, no man can see all the ramifications of his actions. Also, a difficult question to anwser would then be : where do you draw the line if you start removing dictators? How many deaths does it take before a countries involves itself? Is the death count relevant? What about benevolent dictators (sounds like a contradiction in terms :) ? What about people who don't follow your moral codes because of tradition or religion?

If your highest moral standard is religion, and your religion doesn't promote equality of the sexes or education (I'm not saying that middle east religions are such religions, again, I don't know enough about that.. That's a lot of things I don't know :) Still, hypothetically speaking, if such a moral standard existed and was being followed, who are we to say that it is wrong? I sure believe in equality of the sexes and in education, as do you, but what if that angried the god(s) of that religion? What if you picked the "wrong" god? :)

I often find myself thinking about how we are "supposed" to be a modern civilized people when I see the way some people are acting. In fact, that's not limited to the americans :) But being so close to americans (I'm from Canada), I find that "you people" scare the bejeezus out of us sometimes. Be it the religious ways, or the extreme patriotism (amongst other things). But I'm in no position to judge the american ways... The fact that I don't go to church might scare the bejeezus out of many church-loving people :)

Now back to our dictator example : where do we draw the line? When do we interfere and when do we not? Can we be sure that only benefits will come out of you actions/inactions in the long term? You might remove a dictator today, but won't another one just take his place? Are we better off doing nothing? I don't think we can answer those questions, so the world traditionnaly chose not to interfere in other country's "internal" affairs. Is that the best solution? I don't know.

As for the al-quaeda, it is almost the same problem as what I previously talked about. Give weapons, or technology, to someone who has not learned the value of these weapons, and you get problems. Who could have predicted 9/11 way back when the US was fighting communism with al-quaeda ? I think the US has some responsibility in that, but not all of the responsibility of course.

Ah religion! It caused so many wars. I'm tired, I'm going to sleep. I won't be on the internet for a couple of days, so don't take my future lack of replies personally :)

/m79 "I also don't like the argument "ping poing" you use when you state that we were allies with Hussein in the 80s. This is a subject many against the war bring up time and time again - "but we were his ally in the 80s!"
So what? Once nations are allies, we are bound to holding course with them?"

The point is, Saddam was just as "evil" when we were his ally as he is today, and there are other dictators who are just as bad as him that we still do support today. So the argument that "we must remove saddam, because he's evil and kills his own people" is the red herring. Obviously, Money, Oil, and U.S. Nationalism are the issues here. The American people are damn pissed about 9-11, and want to kill some Arabs. Saddam hasn't cooperated with the U.S. for years, and there is a lot of money to be made (by US Corporations, owned by our politicians) rebuilding shit after we blow it up. The fact that he kills his own people and, may have some leftover nerve gas we gave him 20 years ago, only puts him among a large number of other brutal dictators. It's quite relevant that he was once our ally.

hornsofthedevil writes ( /m74 ) "there is a CLEAR AND DEFINTITE distinction between soldiers and terrorists my friend. Soldiers are marked clearly as having the ability to use force in the name of an internationally recognized country.", but then follows it up moment later with "9/11 was an act of WAR by an organization that hid amongst other country;s sovereignity and used the world's freedom against it.".

And then he has the nerve to tell others "you can't have it BOTH ways"!

His logical fallacies are overwhelming, and his arguments are absurd. He says ""Bush invaded the country of Afghanistan"- no, the Taliban was NEVER a recognized country." Wtf? By that reasoning, anti-US terrorists could easily use the excuse that they don't recognize America as a country! Regardless of if he "recognizes" afghanistan, we invaded the place, killed a lot of people that had nothing to do with sept11, and installed a new government. As for the statement "Terrorists ... target civilian installations like discos in at night on a weekend, or crowded markets in the middle of the day., well, then, the US army has a long history as a terrorist organization. From Dresden to Mai Lai, US troops have been targeting civilians from decades. The recent atrocities in Afghanistan and Iraq are hardly different. The fact that some murderers happen to wear a uniform and come from a "recognized country" doesn't change the reality of their actions.

Killing and hatred only breed more of the same. As long as "soldiers" are morally exempt from the thou shall not kill provisions of nearly every moral dogma, there will be people using that label to justify killing eachother.

Peaceful Americans who support our troops in Iraq today are as deluded as peaceful Arabs who supported 9-11.

(I can't believe I just mentioned the Iraq War and 9-11 in the same sentence, but it wasn't to say they're related any further than both being atrocities. By CNN polls, 70% of americans actually believe Iraq is tied to 9-11 somehow, despite zero evidence, and thats really why there is so much fucking public support for the war. It's fucking disgusting how easily the american public can be duped.)

good post Lord.

I do dispute the "racist" allegation though. I am simply calling it as it lies. I never said he middle east has YET to enter the modern world because of their race. Its is a plain and simple fact. 3/4 of its women are illiterate, human rights abuses are across the board and the COMBINED GDP of all the countries is less than that of Spain. With all of that oil revenue that is what those people get. That is NOT America's fault,any more that it is France's fault. That is the fault of the brutal regimes who have their people in a chokehold. they control the media(which blames you and me for all of their problems and support Islamic fundamentalism(which pushes desperate young men to kill themselves in the name of Allah) and refuse to provide education. Ever wonder why all of their leaders are schooled in the US but they refuse to build schools in their own country?

But again, you want it both ways - your allegation that we *created* al Qaeda is quite a leap of judgement i must say. i am assuming you are stating that because we funded the mujhadee, we are responsible for the militant fighters that banded together and started a holy war against us. Those fighters were banded against communist Russia's invasion of Iraq and we provided the weapons and support neede to turn away the cancer that was communism. That was a good thing(please- do not dispute this and equate the communist invasion with ours. communism is responsible for more deaths in world history than any other political movement. that should be self evident). Now we are responsible for what they became when they tried to figure out their country for themselves? Wasn't that what you were saying you wanted from people in their own countries? I mean, they turn into something ugly and its our fault, but if we go in there and establish a democracy, we are violating a sovereign state?

Its called a double standard.

I also don't like the argument "ping poing" you use when you state that we were allies with Hussein in the 80s. This is a subject many against the war bring up time and time again - "but we were his ally in the 80s!"
So what? Once nations are allies, we are bound to holding course with them? If our previous alliances trump the issues at hand then what kind of world would we live in. It sounds like a red herring to me- another excuse to discount this nations efforts at providing freedom for the people of Iraq. Alliances change. We were allies with Russia against Hitler - so are we then responsible for Stalin's attrocities?

jleader, the difference with Burma is that they are not mass producing VX nerve gas(the most deadly substance known to man) and seeking nuclear weapons. I am glad that you brought other brutal dictatorships to the topic though because the last time i checked, the UN's constituancy is full of totalitarian regimes. Libya is chairing the council of human rights?? Burma and Somalia and the rest of the governments that torture and oppress are an issue for the UN. Its funny how nothing ever gets done. this was an instance where we could not tolerate their inaction

"My problem with the anti war contingent regarding Iraq is the hypocracy."

I think that on both sides, the same thing can be said. I have to agree on one point though : while we try to find a way other than war to remove Hussein, he can continue being a dictator, and we'll all agree that this is a bad thing.

"If you do not have a reasonable solution to the problem to propose, then you really don't matter. Your viewpoint is intellectually bankrupt."

So basically, if I don't have the answer right now, I should'nt even try to find one? Of course not.

The question is "are we willing to wait while we are looking for a different solution?". Now that is an important question that does not get debated enough. (I think this is where you see the hypocrisy). Have you seen the final fantasy movie? Of course, in FF, they had an alternative solution. My point his, even if *you* can't see another solution, doesn't mean that there isn't one.

"The point of this war was to place ONE fucking regime in the middle east that doesn't trample all over its people"

Really? Is that what the resolution presented to the UN was about? I though it was about "weapons of mass destruction" and "internationnal security". There's where I think part of the hypocrisy lies. It is hard to disagree with the fact that there is(was) a dictatorship in Irak and that we should do something about it. Then why wasn't there a UN proposition that said something along the lines of "Is there and "evil" dictatorship in Irak? What can we do about it? Let's go kick his butt". No, all that talk about weapons of mass destruction and internationnal security and US security. If I remember Bush correctly, he said to the UN that the US could go "liberate" Irak because the US has an internationnal right to protect itself.

If it was really about the security of the Iraky people, from a profound desire to do good, then the US would have only needed that goal to convince everyone that this war was a good thing(tm). It would also have acted a long time ago.

"We're just pushing one nation towards a government that is run by its people. Arab people.
That should be enough since...its NEVER been done before."

Now we are coming to the other side of the debate. By removing Hussein from power, the killings are going to stop. hard to dissagree with that. But the question is, for how long? Is it going to be better in the long run? How do you plan on "show[ing] them how a modern society works" ? (quite a racist statement btw). Like wheeeeeeeee and Jeremy Hulette pointed out, the US has not been very sucessfull in Afganhistan.

"the US government wants legions of desperate ignorant suicide bombers coming to america to blow us up"

Maybe, just maybe, if the US wasn't interferring and *creating* organisations like al-queada, maybe people would not want to blow you up. Ever think of that? The US as betrayed such organisations that they have created on many occasions. Contrary to what you believe, they have reasons to hate the US. Again it comes to this : what can they do against the mighty US army? NOTHING. The only way they can fight is through terrorism. It's not in the Geneva convention? So if we all obey the Geneva convention, only the strongest should rule. All others should follow or be crushed. That's why war sucks. What if Hussein had the strongest army? What if it was 10 times more powerfull then the US's. Would *you* still follow the Geneva convention? I though so. War doesn't favor justice, if favors the strong.

And remember, it took 9/11 for the US to get involved in this. It took Pearl harbor for WWII.) Face it, Hussein as been in power for many years, and when you get punched in the face (9/11, not even by Hussein), you fight back and cloak with words of liberation and freedom". That's where I see the hypocrisy.

Oh, and did the US ever have any economical relations with Irak while hussein was in power? Throughout the 1980s, the United States supplied Saddam Hussein with billions of dollars' worth of weapons, technology and food to help fight Iran. There's that darn hypocrisy again. Wasn't he a dictator back then?

horns, am I a hypocrite if I don't have a solution to _every_ problem in the world? Or only the ones _you_ claim to have solutions for? How is it hypocritical to say "your solution sounds like in the long run it might be worse than the problem"?

I might have been wrong when I claimed that a US invasion of Iraq was worse than leaving Saddam in power, but where do you get off calling me hypocritical? The war so far has gone a lot better than I feared, but it's not done yet, and there are some possible negative aspects still to come.

So what's your solution to (for example) brutal government repression in Burma? Don't have one? Sorry, you're intellectually bankrupt, according to your standards.

My problem with the anti war contingent regarding Iraq is the hypocracy. No one disputes that Saddam kills his own people indiscriminately but they won't propose any solution to the problem. I am not alone in my convistions-- in fact, Nat Hentoff a longtime cornerstone of liberal causes takes the same position.

 http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0314/hentoff.php

 If you do not have a reasonable solution to the problem to propose, then you really don't matter. Your viewpoint is intellectually bankrupt .
The point of this war was to place ONE fucking regime in the middle east that doesn't trample all over its people.
yes, thats right- there isn't ONE government there that isn't a dictatorship with an unelected tyrant who has a brutal police force who lifts dissidents off the street and locks tham away in a cellar. these governments are greedy barbarous and cruel and for decades the arab people have told the west "fuck off crusaders, we don't need you to tell us how to run things"
on 9/11 we learned that "No, they DO need someone to show them how a modern society works". we don't have to invade every damn country to do this. We're just pushing one nation towards a government that is run by its people. Arab people.
That should be enough since...its NEVER been done before.
The reason we didn't step in earlier is because of the venomous anti american feelings there. no one in the US government wants legions of desperate ignorant suicide bombers coming to america to blow us up, but for christs sake the governments there are churning them out ALREADY.
so maybe - just maybe, before a Jordanian or an egyptian or a syrian says "the west is to blame for all of the arabs problems!!!", they might say - "well hey, those people in Iraq are calling the shots for themselves and its working....thats what i want"

horns, you're playing the criminal/soldier (aka crime/war) having-it-both-ways game. You say that soldiers and terrorists are two different things. Then you say that 9/11 was an act of war. Typically, war is carried out by soldiers; terrorists act mostly in (nominal) times of peace. If 9/11 was an act of war, then by definition the perpetrators are soldiers (admittedly, unconventional soldiers who broke all sorts of international conventions about the conduct of war).

This is similar to the administration's attempts to say that Homeland Security needs extraordinary powers (PATRIOT et al) because this is a time of war, but that the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay are criminals, not enemy combatants.

Also, you say Salon is "dubious". At least Jeremy gave a source for his claims. Do have _any_ evidence (other than bad-mouthing Salon) for your claims of peace and prosperity in Afghanistan?

Incidentally, while I agree that not all soldiers are terrorists, and not all terrorists are soldiers, there's a large gray area where the two overlap, and sometimes the distinction is in the eye of the beholder. There are plenty of cases in history of military forces who fought conventionally for their countries, but were too poor to equip all their troops with uniforms. There are also cases of underground resistance groups, who engaged in clandestine violence and sabotage against occupying military forces. There are also plenty of cases of uniformed, authorized soldiers attacking and terrorising civilians.

phyx, you are seriously uninformed.
there is a CLEAR AND DEFINTITE distinction between soldiers and terrorists my friend. Soldiers are marked clearly as having the ability to use force in the name of an internationally recognized country. Therefore there is a nation responsible for their actions. Furthermore it is a universally regarded doctrine that soldiers target only military installations and not civilian ones unless threatened by such.

Terrorists are without a country, without a recognizable uniform, and target civilian installations like discos in at night on a weekend, or crowded markets in the middle of the day.

This is the same thing that antiwar people keep getting wrong.
"Bush invaded the country of Afghanistan"- no, the Taliban was NEVER a recognized country. The entire UN agreed on this. they would not give nation status to such a barbaric regime.

"The weapons inspectors weren't given a chance to FIND anything"- no, it is not their job to FIND anything. they are not detectives. they have no training for solving crimes or finding evidence. they are there to be brought to the weapons. Uzbekistan and S. Africa both disarmed in days while Saddam yanked our chain for five months.

The WTC tragedy was a terrible crime"- no, 9/11 was an act of WAR by an organization that hid amongst other country;s sovereignity and used the world's freedom against it.

As for Afghanistan. they have an aid package set aside for them in our military budget from the US larger than those given by any other country. The primary contributers are the US and Japan(oooh, remember how we colonized that country after our attack!) and right now there is a concerted effort underway to establish a national army. the word is not out on Afghanistan just yet no matter what the dubious Salon magazine has to say.

and another thing - you can't have it BOTH ways. You decry the US toppling of a dictator because of the life that is lost in collateral damage. Yet if we did nothing, in ten years time you would complain that the US is responsible for all of the deaths Saddam caused on his people because we "supported" him by not going in. The Arab people hate us because we support the governments that are unfair to them. Then, they hate us and yell if we go in and take out the most vicious of the dictators. Even if we backed the Iraqi people ibn their own uprising against Saddam, there would be deaths ten fold and we would be responsible for that too. so what exactly is your position? I'm assuming that you want to live in "Fanstasy Land"

Edited by author 04-09-2003 09:10 PM
I have the link to that story in my post already. thanks for the second note though.

"Now the US needs to prove that they will help any country that is under the boot of evil dictatorship, even if the country does not have a massive oil supply. Is the US ready for that?"

Considering the dismal failure in afghanistan, I think not:
http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2003/04/07/taliban/index.html

But you already knew that :

Edited by author 04-09-2003 08:51 PM
If you think that ANYONE in the anti-war movement is dissapointed that the war is apparently ending quickly and according to the US plans, then you are seriously misguided and morally corrupt. This has never been about "I told you so!". I am ecstatic to see what appears to be a positive resolution to this military action. But I will never change my mind about the false pretense this war was started under. It is being played out now as a liberation of the Iraqi people, whereas the UN debates were about disarmament from WMD. If that was the case, and Saddam was willing to use these weapons, why were they never used during this action? Where is the proof of these described weapons? Powell repeatedly stated that absolute proof existed, though the US was not willing to share the sources. When will this be brought up again? And if the liberation of Iraq is now the ad campaign they are going with, then this is far from over, as the nation will need years and years of support to come away from this as a free, self-sufficient people. Take a look at what has happened in Afghanistan, where the US has basically walked away, and there are reports that the warlords actually running the country are now helping with a reorganized Taliban. The US has an enormous responsibility now, and needs to step up to the plate where power and violence are not the answer.

And where do we go next? Now the US needs to prove that they will help any country that is under the boot of evil dictatorship, even if the country does not have a massive oil supply. Is the US ready for that?

I am honestly stunned that a desire for non violent resolution to matters of international tension can be mistaken for support of fascism. get real! there is no tit-for-tat on this issue! there is no need for chest thumping and ego stroking here.

"how would keeping Saddam Hussein in power promote peace?"

Actually, you are refusing to see any other alternative to war. And therefore, you wrongly conclude that if we are opposed to the war, we are supporting Hussein, which is wrong. I could just as easilly say that since you are supporting war, you support killing. And since it says it the bible "thou shalt not kill", then we can assume that you don't believe in god. Then if you don't believe in god, you're acting under orders from the devil, as your name suggests :) The same can be said about anyone who's pro-war. So what, half or more of the US is under orders from the Devil?

Anyway, I still stand behind the fact that the ends don't justify the means.

hornsofthedevil wrote ...and by "people" do you mean "soldiers"? are you going to make a distinction between soldiers and people? No? Oh, than i can see your completely adolescant and assinine comparison between US troops and terrorsits /m34

"People" includes soldiers. All soliders are people, yes?. Some people choose to call themselves "soldiers". Our troops do, and most people we call "terrorists" do. And many people would agree our "soldiers" are actually "terrorists". So terms like "terrorist" and "soldier" are clearly very relative. But they're all still people; that one isn't rocket science.

The misconception that "soldiers" are somehow exempt from the universal moral rules about killing is what allows terrorists to operate. That applies to both side's definition of soldier and terrorist. Why is this so hard for you to understand?