The Left on Iraq: Whatever the USA does is wrong.

[Skeptic]

I've been looking at the history of this thing.

When the USA supported Saddam in the 1980s against Iran--seeing him as the lesser of two evils--the left was all agog with how awful he is. His victims (the Kurds, the Marsh Arabs) were the darlings of the left.

Then Saddam made a mistake and attacked Kuwait. Suddently, a US invasion was planned. Almost overnight, Saddam's victims became an anathema to the left, part of the "propaganda" against Iraq and a justification of G. Bush, Sr., "imperialist war". Down with "Saddam is a murderer", up with "no blood for oil".

Then, due to many reasons, Saddam was kept in power (to the delight of those who saw it as proof of "the failure of American imperialism"), and UN sanctions were imposed, with US support. Since the sanctions were due to US support, the left began a campaign villifying the sanctions as the cause of "genocide", and demanding their unconditional lifting. Of course, the fact that Saddam had more than enough money even after the sanctions to feed and clothe his people, but deliberately starved them as a political tool, was ignored or derided as irrelevant. It's all the US fault, for insisting on sanctions.

Then GWB and Tony Blair showed a resolution to invade Iraq. Overnight, of course, the UN and its sanctions became the darling of the left; the same people who were ranting on how evil the sanctions were, started to explain how effective and wonderful they are, proof that "international pressure and world opinion" are efficient when fighting dictators like Saddam, and why there is no reason at all to actually fight a war.

Get the point? First Saddam bad, then Saddam good. First sanctions bad, then sanctions good. First his victims matter, then (before the first gulf war) they are "war-justifying propaganda", then they matter again, as long as they can be blamed on "evil US sanctions", then they are "propaganda" again (before te second gulf war). Cearly, what matters is not the facts, but the burning desire to always be on the opposite side than the USA, no matter WHAT the USA does--like a five-year-old acting the contrarian.

It's sad, really. In the past, the left--whatever its faults--could AT LEAST be counted on to oppose Fascism. Nowadays, fascists like Saddam are the darlings of the left... merely because the USA finally decided to do something about them, and therefore such "imperialist war-mongering" must be opposed by all right thinking people If "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", which I don't actually think is all that accurate, the left has been adding quite a bunch of sleazy "friends" to their war against "evil American imperialism"...

[The Don]

No, the consistent thread is the Lefts' long standing opposition to the United States' (and every other country more or less)approach to conducting foreign policy.

If the U.S. spent less time justifying its actions in terms of higher ideals ("we want to establish democracy", "we want to make the world a safer place") then its track record would look less hypocritical (deposing democratically elected leaders when they're not the desirable type, only picking fights when they're one-sided).

I'd rather the United States (and every other country more or less) were more honest and said things like:

- we don't like Islamic countries because we don't understand them and their attitides and values quite frankly alarm us
- we alway act in the U.S. best interests at any time. We have never, and will do anything for the "greater good" (then again neither has any other country
- we will always support Israel because they've been a good friend in the past and we have a large Jewish lobby in congress
- our politics are insular, we only get involved globally when we want to

I think the left is also uncomfortable at the way in which American values (this tend to be quite right wing and authoritarian by many left wingers' standards) are seeming to be imposed across the world. In the case of American left wingers (now there's an endagered species) it's even being done in their name.

Finally, the United States due to having a strong military and a desire to get things done, tends to steam in without necessarily (it would seem) thinking through the consequences.

I think that the left wing would like a little less meddling in the cause of self interest and a little more in the cause of the common good

[rikzilla]

Fine post Skeptic,

The real change this time is how the Democratic party has been so co-opted by the angry/contrarian left. Did you see Dean's speech after the capture of Saddam? Disgusting!

Imagine that, a front runner for the Democratic Presidential nomination,...expressing sour political grapes over the capture of an avowed mortal enemy of the nation he hopes to lead!

Why doesn't the Democratic party just cut out the middleman and nominate Saddam himself!?

-z

[Tony]

Originally posted by The Don


I think that the left wing would like a little less meddling in the cause of self interest and a little more in the cause of the common good

Typical, it all boils down to symbolism over substance.

[Mr Manifesto]

Your argument is warped. Being opposed to the invasion does not mean you think Saddam is good. But you knew this, because the point has been raised to you a million times in this forum alone.

The problem with the invasion is that it was illegal. It is not up to the US who runs what country- that power belongs to the people of the country in question. Otherwise, the rest of the world could say Bush is a bad man and overthrow him, no?

If you don't agree with that, tell me where the line should be drawn. There are worse dictatorships than Saddam's running at the moment (and were before and during Gulf War II)- yet the US doesn't seem to give a crap about them.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Nowadays, fascists like Saddam are the darlings of the left...

Uh huh.

Maybe if you and Rik keep typing this someone will believe it. All it does for me is bring into strict focus the kind of argument tactics used by certain people here.

Or is it that you really believe that anyone outside of the Baath Party likes Saddam?

Claiming that anyone that speaks out against the war wishes Saddam were still in charge is a dishonest tactic. I guess since the "right" hasn't invaded North Korea to get rid of Kim II then the "Dear Leader" must be a "darling" of the right. Same with Castro, Qadaffi, and every other tin pot dictator that causes his own people to suffer.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

The problem with the invasion is that it was illegal. It is not up to the US who runs what country- that power belongs to the people of the country in question. Otherwise, the rest of the world could say Bush is a bad man and overthrow him, no?


You're right, No. The rest of the world could not do that, unless they like nuclear war.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
But you knew this, because the point has been raised to you a million times in this forum alone.

There are worse dictatorships than Saddam's running at the moment (and were before and during Gulf War II)- yet the US doesn't seem to give a crap about them.

You accuse him of something and pull the same ruse playing dumb about the many facets of why we went into Iraq?

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by corplinx


You accuse him of something and pull the same ruse playing dumb about the many facets of why we went into Iraq?

Hate to go over this ground again, but the reasons to me seem to be because he was thought to have WMD's (which many knew he didn't have, or at least not enough to be an 'imminent threat'... I imagine there's a barrel of mustard gas somewhere in Iraq), and for his ties to Al-Qaeda, which many knew did not exist.

Was there some other burning reason? Did Bush mention the reason before we went in? There seems to be a lot of after-the-fact rationalising for the reasons that we went into this war, just wondering what was said before.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Suddenly:
Or is it that you really believe that anyone outside of the Baath Party likes Saddam?

He'd be right. Take the example of George Galloway, ex Labour MP for Glasgow Kelvin and self described member of the "anti-imperialist left". (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/interviews/story/0,11660,792915,00.html)

[Skeptic]

- we don't like Islamic countries because we don't understand them and their attitides and values quite frankly alarm us

Actually, you got it the wrong way. The US UNDERSTANDS islamic culture. It understands that, unless islamism (the political movement whose goal is a sharia-based world, as opposed to Islam, the religion) will be defeated or contained by force, it will spread throughout the world, like fascism and communism threathened to do before. The USA also understands that the real problem that lets islamism spread is that most muslim societies, for historical reasons, are theocratic and authoritarian, thus letting extremists gain control easily--much like Russia and Germany had traditional autocratic, centralized structure which made it easier for the Communists or Nazis to harness the country to their extreme cause once in power.

It is the LEFT that has no undestanding of Muslim culture. It is the left who hesitates to say Bin Laden and co. are evil thugs as to not "insult" muslims, or who considers polygamy, stoning, and so on perfectly all right and not at all against human rights... as long as they're "part of the culture of traditional (read: primitive, opressive, backwards) islamic society". It is the LEFT that thinks all the ideals it cherishes--sexual equality, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, etc.--should simply stop at the frontier of the muslim world, lest such "strange values be imposed on a different culture", as the Muslim world--or, more precsiely, the islamist who control it, since the masses in that world, especially the women, have no say about anything--keeps telling them. It is the LEFT, in other words, that thinks that opression, subjugation of women, and opressive state religion is the best Muslims deserve; they are, after all, "a traditional culture", which must mean they LIKE being opressed. Why "wage a war on Islam" by defeating Saddam Hussein, then?

The left, after all, looked at all the official spokesmen from these governments, and read all the articles in their state-controlled press (or, rather, in English translation--most of those who wag their fingers at the USA's "misundertanding of Islamic culture" cannot read a word of Arabic, let alone Farsi or Pashtun), and whaddaya know? All the authocratic state controlled papers AGREE with them that democracy and freedom is not something the Muslims need! What more proof do you want?

SOMEBODY here misunderstands Muslim society... but it isn't the USA.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Hate to go over this ground again, but the reasons to me seem to be because he was thought to have WMD's (which many knew he didn't have, or at least not enough to be an 'imminent threat'... I imagine there's a barrel of mustard gas somewhere in Iraq), and for his ties to Al-Qaeda, which many knew did not exist.

Was there some other burning reason? Did Bush mention the reason before we went in? There seems to be a lot of after-the-fact rationalising for the reasons that we went into this war, just wondering what was said before.

The reason we went to Iraq (based in small part on my opinion) is because after 9/11 (no I'm not saying Saddam war responsible for it so don't even go there) we could not afford a hostile to the USA country which was known to have WMD to simply go on. Bush gave Saddam an ultimatum that he should comply with UN and declare what he did with WMD, missiles and other weapons that he was not suppose to have. Saddam did not, and 12 years was more than enough to do so. So we went in and removed the obviously hostile to US regime. Were we acting in our own interest? Yes, but that's because we don't like our population to be killed off by terrorist acts.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Shane Costello


He'd be right. Take the example of George Galloway, ex Labour MP for Glasgow Kelvin and self described member of the "anti-imperialist left". (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/interviews/story/0,11660,792915,00.html)

But even that guy calls Saddam "a brutal dictator" and condemned his human rights record. The only good thing he seems to say about Saddam is that Saddam seems polite.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Suddenly


Uh huh.

Maybe if you and Rik keep typing this someone will believe it. All it does for me is bring into strict focus the kind of argument tactics used by certain people here.

Or is it that you really believe that anyone outside of the Baath Party likes Saddam?

Claiming that anyone that speaks out against the war wishes Saddam were still in charge is a dishonest tactic. I guess since the "right" hasn't invaded North Korea to get rid of Kim II then the "Dear Leader" must be a "darling" of the right. Same with Castro, Qadaffi, and every other tin pot dictator that causes his own people to suffer.

Suddenly,

Skeptic brought up some specific problems with the left's inconsistency in opinion. (Well, actually these inconsistencies point to the one constant the left espouses...the contrarian position on US policy)

First they're against the sanctions....then they're all for the sanctions....how explain this AND the other points Skeptic pointed out??

Why not try and actually rebut what Skeptic has said, and I agreed with, rather than attack us for our "tactics of argumentation"?? Our tactics are not really at issue here. I believe there's another thread dedicated to that question. ;)

-z

[Luke T.]

Hey, as long as I'm here, I'd like to just jot a note or two about the criticisms about Bush's lack of planning for after the war for Iraq. Often, the Marshall Plan is used as a weapon to beat Bush on the head for. Why didn't we have a Marshall Plan ready to go? Blah, blah, blah.

Take a look at the Marshall Plan. I believe it wasn't even created until well after WWII was over. And the first monies didn't start to flow until 1948! So by that ruler, we are WAY ahead of the game in Iraq.

The Allies had several years to contemplate what to do in Europe after the war, and still they took their time getting around to actually doing something.

That is all. Carry on.

[Mike B.]

Interesting.

The "New Republic," a center left publication that is very critical of Bush at times made some of the same points Skeptic made.

It took Chomsky to task (The Guardian, another center-left, publication did as well recently) for his hypocrisy.

Skeptic described it perfectly: The quick shifting back and forth to whatever puts them against the West in general.

[epepke]

Originally posted by rikzilla
First they're against the sanctions....then they're all for the sanctions....how explain this AND the other points Skeptic pointed out??

The sanctions were originally a darling of the moderate left.

Just anecdotal, but when the first Gulf War "ended," it was only a day or so before leftists in this town plastered over their "No Blood For Oil" bumper stickers with "What About the Kurds" bumper stickers.

This depresses me especially, as I am not a conservative, and I think a well focused left could actually conceivably do some good, as they did in the 1960s and 1970s. But modern leftitsts seem content to be merely gadflies.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

If you don't agree with that, tell me where the line should be drawn. There are worse dictatorships than Saddam's running at the moment (and were before and during Gulf War II)- yet the US doesn't seem to give a crap about them.

But you DON'T want the US to do anything about them right?

So why bring it up? It is a completely bogus argument.

You would surely be against the US doing something unless it was backed by the UN. (I have a sneaking suspicion that even then you would be against it, but find another reason.)

On a another level,

Isn't this like pointing to a burning house and saying, "Well I can not put out all the houses on fire, so I better not put this one out."

[crackmonkey]

Apparently, the Guardian agrees with Skeptic here...

http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/politicsphilosophyandsociety/0,6121,1106445,00.html

[shecky]

As usual, the right thinks that alienating half the western world and lying to justify a war was A GOOD THING.

Has nothing to do with the fact that Hussein is a monster and deserved to be ousted.

The problem with the right is that it's faith based government.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by shecky
As usual, the right thinks that alienating half the western world and lying to justify a war was A GOOD THING.

Has nothing to do with the fact that Hussein is a monster and deserved to be ousted.

The problem with the right is that it's faith based government.

It ain't the Right that is faith based. America is faith based. The government is not.

[Zero]

Wow...yet another case of someone having both sides of the discussion on his own, and making up the other side's view to make himself feel better. Skeptic, you are consistant, at least. Wrong, but consistant.

[Luke T.]

It seems the Left has a "Atrocities/War Crimes Committed By U.S. Troops In (name country here)" template ready to hit the presses at a moment's notice. The alacrity with which these stories come out after hostilities commence is nothing short of amazing.

[jj]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
Your argument is warped. Being opposed to the invasion does not mean you think Saddam is good. But you knew this, because the point has been raised to you a million times in this forum alone.

The problem with the invasion is that it was illegal. It is not up to the US who runs what country- that power belongs to the people of the country in question. Otherwise, the rest of the world could say Bush is a bad man and overthrow him, no?

If you don't agree with that, tell me where the line should be drawn. There are worse dictatorships than Saddam's running at the moment (and were before and during Gulf War II)- yet the US doesn't seem to give a crap about them.

Well, yes, North Korea comes to mind, but all they can do is nuke Seattle or Anchorage...

Seattle is a fine liberal city.

I think Pol Pot's packed it in,yes, but Kampuchea is still a flat-out disaster. Not sure how Laos is doing right now. Then there's some of the smaller South American countries we don't even hear about any more...

Yes, there are worse, but THEY DON'T HAVE ANY OIL.

Hmm.....

Who knows? It's only circumstantial.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Zero
Wow...yet another case of someone having both sides of the discussion on his own, and making up the other side's view to make himself feel better. Skeptic, you are consistant, at least. Wrong, but consistant.

Whatever makes you feel better. Just keep telling yourself he's wrong, eventually, you'll believe it.

[jj]

Originally posted by Skeptic
- we don't like Islamic countries because we don't understand them and their attitides and values quite frankly alarm us

Actually, you got it the wrong way. The US UNDERSTANDS islamic culture. It understands that, unless islamism (the political movement whose goal is a sharia-based world, as opposed to Islam, the religion) will be defeated or contained by force, it will spread throughout the world, like fascism and communism threathened to do before.

Actually, skeptic, you just said something I agree quite strongly with.

On the other hand, our present leadership has responded with the "new crusades", going right back to the dark ages and setting Christianity against Islam in the battle for the holy land.

I'd think that the futility of that was well-established in history already.

The evils of the right-wing Islamic movements are clear, and have been since the end of the dark ages. While Europe was in the dark ages, being ruled by Popes and Divine Right Kings, the Moorish civilization developed things like algebra, at least some hint of calculus (nobody knows what form, but their building methods show some clear understanding of it in things like elliptical arches, etc), the modern number system (which is something quite separate from algebra), and quite a few other scientific and mathematical advances.

Then the scientific and mathematical disciplines were destroyed by the fundamentalists, just like we see happening in the USA in the present day, as supported by the Bush administration.

And, Rik, if you care about god in government, I'd think you'd be a bit worried about the nonsense about stem cells, the attacks on scientific integrety in the environmental reports, the inclusion of "creation science" and that sort of thing, but, you know, Rik, I don't see you speaking out on that here, even though it's your favorite administration doing it.

[Crossbow]

Skeptic,

Please provide at one source that shows the left supported Saddam.

[jj]

Originally posted by shecky
As usual, the right thinks that alienating half the western world and lying to justify a war was A GOOD THING.

Has nothing to do with the fact that Hussein is a monster and deserved to be ousted.

The problem with the right is that it's faith based government.

You know, shecky, sometimes you just make too much sense.

Expect a barrage of vilification coming your way from the right-wing thugs.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Tony


Whatever makes you feel better. Just keep telling yourself he's wrong, eventually, you'll believe it. I didn't have to tell myself he was wrong: you can pretty much count on being wrong when you make sweeping claims about any large group of people.

[jj]

Originally posted by Luke T.


It ain't the Right that is faith based. America is faith based. The government is not.

The USA was founded on the principles of the enlightenment, Luke, and that fact is clearly shown in history.

The enlightenment was a secular, nearly atheistic movement, Luke.

Sorry, no, "America" is not faith-based.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Zero
I didn't have to tell myself he was wrong: you can pretty much count on being wrong when you make sweeping claims about any large group of people.


What large group of people? Correct me if I am wrong Skeptic, but he is not talking about the left in terms of every single individual that makes up the left. He is talking about the leftist school of thought.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Skeptic,

Please provide at one source that shows the left supported Saddam.

Well, we can start with all the "anti-war" demonstrations, demanding the US not topple him.

[DavidJames]

"Just keep telling yourself he's wrong, eventually, you'll believe it."

I'm afraid until he provides verifiable evidence to support his claims, I have no other choice but to believe he's wrong.

I would like to see the evidence of his claim that "the left" said desert storm was an "imperialist war". First of all who are "the left"? I want specific names with quotes and sources, something notably lacking in his (and the Guardian's) rant. Since the "right" here are mainstream politicians, I would assume "the left" would be as well. But until Skeptic actually provides facts instead of opinions, I will continue to assume he is wrong.

When people are complaining about "the right", they are referring to Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their fellow Republicans in Congress. So please spare me the Noam Chomsky references, unless you can directly link him to mainstream politicians in Congress

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by jj


The USA was founded on the principles of the enlightenment, Luke, and that fact is clearly shown in history.

The enlightenment was a secular, nearly atheistic movement, Luke.

Sorry, no, "America" is not faith-based.

That is quite revisionist. A casual examination of our history will show that America is faith based. Start with the Puritans and go forward from there. Atheists were practically unheard of 150 years ago in America.

The New York Spectator, August 23, 1831:


The Court of Common Pleas of Chester County a few days since rejected a witness who declared his disbelief in the existence of God. The presiding judge remarked that he had not before been aware that there was a man living who did not believe in the existence of God; that this belief constituted the sanction of all testimony in a court of justice, and that he knew of no cause in a Christian country where a witness had been permitted to testify without such belief.

But to restate what I said, America is faith based while the government is not. However the influence of the faith of the American people has always been felt in our government.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Skeptic


Well, we can start with all the "anti-war" demonstrations, demanding the US not topple him. Again, you misrepresent the overall 'anti-war' movement, and take from it the one element that supports your beliefs. You ignore the vast spectrum of 'anti-war' protesters, some of whome almost certainly share views similar to your own. For instance, some of us wanted to see Iraq freed, but without America having to foot the majority of the bill, and not have our troops go over there without an better plan for setting up a new government. Just saying 'anyone who didn't support Bush's plan 100% is pro-Saddam' is a simplistic and incorrect view of a complicated situation.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Suddenly,

Skeptic brought up some specific problems with the left's inconsistency in opinion. (Well, actually these inconsistencies point to the one constant the left espouses...the contrarian position on US policy)

It is just a bunch of labeling fallacy and overgeneralization. If I felt like taking artistic license and gloss over the nuances I could write about how I've been thinking that the right just wants to shoot people who aren't like them. It wouldn't be true, but it might sound good. It is real easy to spot trends when you ignore detail and nuance, as well as group all opposition under one label and assume they act in concert.

First they're against the sanctions....then they're all for the sanctions....how explain this AND the other points Skeptic pointed out?? Who is this "they?" Plus I get the indication that "sanctions" and "inspections" may be getting interchanged here. Those details again. Feeding a few starving babies isn't the same as monitoring WMD. I know it isn't that simple, but that's my whole point.

Why not try and actually rebut what Skeptic has said, and I agreed with, rather than attack us for our "tactics of argumentation"?? Our tactics are not really at issue here. I believe there's another thread dedicated to that question. ;)

-z
The tactics are the argument as far as I can tell. I can't rebut generalizations and faulty assumptions except by saying they are such. Any civilized argument goes out the window when opponents to the war are accused of favoring Saddam and being unhappy at his downfall and capture. I think it is a vile act to do so, one that screams of desperation and dehumanization, as if certain people have a need to define any opposition into absurdity so that they don't have to be taken seriously.

I'd hope that anyone not sniffing glue on a regular basis did not believe that 1) The war would not be a military success, 2) Saddam would be not be killed or captured and 3) The world is not a better place without Saddam in power. There might be the odd looney here or there that thought otherwise. The disagreement wasn't in the goals; the disagreement was in the costs of both action and inaction. These costs are still even today up in the air and will be forever because the whole "If we don't invade Saddam will nuke Detroit" possibility now can only be looked at in a "what if" manner, although it isn't looking real possible.

So, accusing those that disagree about the costs of immediately seeking those goals of being against the goals entirely strikes me as dishonest. Sure, there may be the odd looney that thinks Saddam is swell (but even that guy mentioned in an earlier post wanted him out), but hardly even a significant minority of the "anti-war" crowd believe that. Painting all opposition with that brush isn't accurate.

Just to get it all out here, I'll throw in my thoughts on the "politicalization" of Saddam's capture. A one scene play with two characters, "Right" and "Left":

Right: We caught him! You said we never would. This proves GWB was right about everything and he will be re-elected. How could you doubt that he would win this war!! We told you that we would win! Ha Ha Ha.

Left: Well, actually I thought you said the war was about WMDs and be over quick. Maybe this is a good time to get more of the world on board...

Right: (interupting) HOW DARE YOU PLAY POLITICS ON THIS DAY OF VICTORY!!! JUST ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG!! You are just unhappy that your hero was captured and are trying to put some political spin on this glorious capture that validates every decision that George W. Bush has ever made and locks up his re-election because you democrats wanted Saddam to be in power forever...

(curtain closes as theme from "Rocky" plays)

[Zero]

Originally posted by DavidJames
*snip*
When people are complaining about "the right", they are referring to Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their fellow Republicans in Congress. So please spare me the Noam Chomsky references, unless you can directly link him to mainstream politicians in Congress When talking about 'the right', it is important to make a fine distinction between traditional conservatives, moderate Republican, PNAC neocons, and far-right lunatics, to name a few factions. It is inaccurate to lump every Republican or conservative in with the most extreme elements of the overall group.

[DavidJames]

"When talking about 'the right', it is important to make a fine distinction between traditional conservatives, moderate Republican, PNAC neocons, and far-right lunatics, to name a few factions. It is inaccurate to lump every Republican or conservative in with the most extreme elements of the overall group"

Exactly, that's why I named the people in my post. They are the architects of the policy currently being debated. In return I hear about "the left". I want to know who they are and what they said.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Skeptic


Well, we can start with all the "anti-war" demonstrations, demanding the US not topple him.

OK then. So you think that the anti-war people are Saddam supporters, is this correct?

[Zero]

Originally posted by DavidJames
"When talking about 'the right', it is important to make a fine distinction between traditional conservatives, moderate Republican, PNAC neocons, and far-right lunatics, to name a few factions. It is inaccurate to lump every Republican or conservative in with the most extreme elements of the overall group"

Exactly, that's why I named the people in my post. They are the architects of the policy currently being debated. In return I hear about "the left". I want to know who they are and what they said. Apparently, the 'left' is Barbara Streisand...:D

There are some peopel who would actually name names...but the likelihood is small, and it is very likely that after labeling someone, those same people will misrepresent what the say.

[DanishDynamite]

You know Skeptic, I actually could agree with your title if by "Left" you mean the extreme kill-all-capitalists Left. However, if by Left you mean anyone to the left of yourself, Genghis Khan, Pat Robertson or similar, then you are obviously wrong. Perhaps you could clarify.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Crossbow


OK then. So you think that the anti-war people are Saddam supporters, is this correct?

I think the general idea is that the Left is not so much pro-Saddam, or pro-anybody-else, as they are anti-America.

[DavidJames]

"I think the general idea is that the Left is not so much pro-Saddam, or pro-anybody-else, as they are anti-America"

I see. So when you criticize your children for behavior you don't approve, you are anti-your children.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Luke T.


I think the general idea is that the Left is not so much pro-Saddam, or pro-anybody-else, as they are anti-America. Facts? Links? Something other than a blanket statement? Please?



I'll give you a dollar, if that helps.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
You know Skeptic, I actually could agree with your title if by "Left" you mean the extreme kill-all-capitalists Left. However, if by Left you mean anyone to the left of yourself, Genghis Khan, Pat Robertson or similar, then you are obviously wrong. Perhaps you could clarify.

I know you guys are waiting on Skeptic, but I'd like to put my two cents in on this.

I don't like to lump everyone to the left of me together. For one thing, some people are left of me on some things while they aren't on others.

What concerns me is that the extreme left seems to have an undue influence on the power structure. We can see that by Dean (and others) kowtowing/bowing and scraping to the far left during the campaign to win the Democratic nomination. Once whoever secures the nomination becomes the Democratic Party candidate, that person will then have to suddenly shift gears toward the center to attract the majority.

The Republicans are not immune from this problem in the other direction. But I don't believe the extreme right has nearly as much influence on the Republicans as the extreme Left has on the Democrats. The extreme left gets away with language the right would be crucified for.

Dean is one of the most liberal/lefty candidates out there. So why is he the leader right now?

Most democrats probably aren't as left as he is, but they will be stuck with him because the far left has the power and the money and thus the influence. That's the problem.

Democrats need to reject the far left candidates early in the primaries and forget about who has the most ads or who the media says is ahead.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Luke T.


I know you guys are waiting on Skeptic, but I'd like to put my two cents in on this.

I don't like to lump everyone to the left of me together. For one thing, some people are left of me on some things while they aren't on others.

What concerns me is that the extreme left seems to have an undue influence on the power structure. We can see that by Dean (and others) kowtowing/bowing and scraping to the far left during the campaign to win the Democratic nomination. Once whoever secures the nomination becomes the Democratic Party candidate, that person will then have to suddenly shift gears toward the center to attract the majority.

The Republicans are not immune from this problem in the other direction. But I don't believe the extreme right has nearly as much influence on the Republicans as the extreme Left has on the Democrats. The extreme left gets away with language the right would be crucified for.

Dean is one of the most liberal/lefty candidates out there. So why is he the leader right now?

Most democrats probably aren't as left as he is, but they will be stuck with him because the far left has the power and the money and thus the influence. That's the problem.

Democrats need to reject the far left candidates early in the primaries and forget about who has the most ads or who the media says is ahead. There is some sort of break with reality going on here...most people on 'the left' think that Dean isn't very liberal at all, and completely disagree with some of the stances he has taken. On the other hand, we have seen over the last two decades how the extreme right can mobilize large amounts of voters, and has been a force in the party, especially after 1996.

I think part of the problem is that many people only care about one or two issues, and see anyone who doesn't agree with them 100% to be 100% against them.

[shecky]

Originally posted by Luke T.

But I don't believe the extreme right has nearly as much influence on the Republicans as the extreme Left has on the Democrats.

You must be joking, right?

[Skeptic]

Again, you misrepresent the overall 'anti-war' movement, and take from it the one element that supports your beliefs. You ignore the vast spectrum of 'anti-war' protesters, some of whome almost certainly share views similar to your own.

I ignore it because it's a completely meaningless difference.

For instance, some of us wanted to see Iraq freed, but without America having to foot the majority of the bill, and not have our troops go over there without an better plan for setting up a new government.

I'm sorry, Sir, but you seem to live in a fantasy land with no realtion to the real world. The choice was EITHER US involvement, OR Saddam staying in power. You couldn't have both Saddam removed and no US involvement. Nobody else but the US could have done it--as was blatantly obvious from the start. So if you choose "no US involvement", that means "keeping Saddam in power". Period. It's just a different name for the same thing.

If your "enlightened" anti-war view had won out, today Saddam would be firing victory shots into the air from his palace, delcaring his defeat of the "evil imperialistic Bush who cowered from the world's anger". Luckily, this didn't happen, so he is today in an American prison. THESE were the two paths to take. You did your best to make the first outcome come true, so to that extent, you were pro-Saddam.

Simple, isn't it?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Again, you misrepresent the overall 'anti-war' movement, and take from it the one element that supports your beliefs. You ignore the vast spectrum of 'anti-war' protesters, some of whome almost certainly share views similar to your own.

I ignore it because it's a completely meaningless difference.

For instance, some of us wanted to see Iraq freed, but without America having to foot the majority of the bill, and not have our troops go over there without an better plan for setting up a new government.

I'm sorry, Sir, but you seem to live in a fantasy land with no realtion to the real world. The choice was EITHER US involvement, OR Saddam staying in power. You couldn't have both Saddam removed and no US involvement. Nobody else but the US could have done it--as was blatantly obvious from the start. So if you choose "no US involvement", that means "keeping Saddam in power". Period. It's just a different name for the same thing.

If your "enlightened" anti-war view had won out, today Saddam would be firing victory shots into the air from his palace, delcaring his defeat of the "evil imperialistic Bush who cowered from the world's anger". Luckily, this didn't happen, so he is today in an American prison. THESE were the two paths to take. You did your best to make the first outcome come true, so to that extent, you were pro-Saddam.

Simple, isn't it? Again, instead of responding to what I actually said, you squeezed it into your preconcieved worldview, and responded to your favorite strawman. Like I said, your consistancy is impressive, even if your views and actions aren't.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Zero
we have seen over the last two decades how the extreme right can mobilize large amounts of voters, and has been a force in the party, especially after 1996.




*********!! When was the last time the KKK wielded any kind of influence with mainstream voters?

[Larspeart]

Wow!

That whole thing. . . I totally agree mate! Great analysis!

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Zero
There is some sort of break with reality going on here...most people on 'the left' think that Dean isn't very liberal at all, and completely disagree with some of the stances he has taken.

That is kind of the point. He isn't liberal enough for them, so he feels compelled to try to satisfy them and is pulled farther to the left.

On the other hand, we have seen over the last two decades how the extreme right can mobilize large amounts of voters, and has been a force in the party, especially after 1996.

Well, this kind of helps me finish my thought about religion and America being faith based. The vast majority of Americans believe in a God of some sort or another. If that isn't a faith based population, I don't know what is.

Does that make them all "extreme Right" because they believe in God? Hardly. A belief in God alone is not enough to qualify for the "extreme" right. I would venture to say that the Jewish population tends toward the liberal side.

Homosexual marriage. Two parent households. Abortion. These are the playing fields of the religious right.

I think part of the problem is that many people only care about one or two issues, and see anyone who doesn't agree with them 100% to be 100% against them.

Yes. Many voters are single-issue voters. Guns. Abortions. Gay rights. Left and Right.

I don't think it is too far off the mark to say that if you know a politician's stand on gun control (JUST AS AN EXAMPLE!), you can pretty much guess a lot of the rest of his/her politics. There are exceptions, but it is a pretty good rule of thumb.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Tony



*********!! When was the last time the KKK wielded any kind of influence with mainstream voters? Hmmmm...I meant more like the Religious Right, the spiritual cousins of the KKK. :D

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Skeptic,

Please provide at one source that shows the left supported Saddam.

How 'bout the leftist wet dream which was posted by "Common Dreams" that bastion of leftist mental masturbation?

Leftist wet dream... (http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0721-04.htm)

Yeah, the left never came out and said Saddam is a good guy. No, instead they organized bus loads of idiot "shields" to Iraq.. and they had rallies with thousands of signs denouncing Bush....while remaining completely silent on Saddam himself.

I'd say that the "tacit" form of support for Saddam is pretty widespread among the left.

-z

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Luke T.


I think the general idea is that the Left is not so much pro-Saddam, or pro-anybody-else, as they are anti-America.

Well, well, that sure is nice switch.

You anti-war guys are not Saddam supporters, but
You anti-war guys are anti-America!

So I spent four years in the military, became an engineer, a volunteer EMT, a volunteer pilot, and paid my taxes just to find out that I am really anti-American since I opposed the war.

Well thank you so very much really sweet clarification, it says such a great deal about you pro-war types.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Luke T.


That is kind of the point. He isn't liberal enough for them, so he feels compelled to try to satisfy them and is pulled farther to the left.



Well, this kind of helps me finish my thought about religion and America being faith based. The vast majority of Americans believe in a God of some sort or another. If that isn't a faith based population, I don't know what is.

Does that make them all "extreme Right" because they believe in God? Hardly. A belief in God alone is not enough to qualify for the "extreme" right. I would venture to say that the Jewish population tends toward the liberal side.

Homosexual marriage. Two parent households. Abortion. These are the playing fields of the religious right.



Yes. Many voters are single-issue voters. Guns. Abortions. Gay rights. Left and Right.

I don't think it is too far off the mark to say that if you know a politician's stand on gun control (JUST AS AN EXAMPLE!), you can pretty much guess a lot of the rest of his/her politics. There are exceptions, but it is a pretty good rule of thumb. I guess, in broad terms, but that sort of thinking, IMO, is a hinderance to any sort of progress. I honestly don't think that the world is 'either/or', 'black/white'...and the impression that some people get about there only being extremists on the side opposing them is simply wrong.

[headscratcher4]

I can't speak for other "leftists", only my self.

I oppose the war today because the President of the United States and his Administration, in so far as I currently have evidence, lied to me.

When we started this battle, I was willing to cut them some slack believing that those in power over so bold and unilateral a move, would have the goods. In other words, they claimed Iraq had WMD and was an imminent threat to the US and the region. THey also claimed that Iraq was in cahoots with Al Qeda.

The Bottom line is that, to date, none of it has proven true -- which brings into sharp focus the larger question of what we are really doing in Iraq.

Much as I am glad, and I am, to see Saddam gone, it is post-hoc rationalising. Clearly, he did not -- so far as can be judged at this time -- have any WMD program sufficient to strike at the US. So, he didn't represent a direct threat to US or US Security.

Now, I will oppose this war until the President and the Administration can prove that they were not lying -- sorry, for the more sensitive among you, interpreting the facts freely. Americans are dying, and while I am proud of their performance, their ability and bravery, the people who put them in harms way have not been honest with the American people. That is why I am opposed to the war.

While I am sure I will be accused of it, nonething in my opposition says that Saddam was a good guy, it doesn't even say he wasn't a threat. They simply haven't made the case about the threat. Period.

Our policy, as a result, is a dishonest policy. I don't believe Americans should be put in harms way for a dishonest policy.

Now, the situation is still redeemable, but 6 months on, with nary a WMD to display, just hints and roumors, the case remains weak.

And, I am afraid history will judge us poorly (though, certainly, not as poorly as Saddam or those who would put him on a pedestal)..not be cause of our "imperial" ambitions, but because of hubris, hypocracy and a basic betrayal of what I believe America stands for. For all of our faults, we fought for our ideals in WWII, I am even willing to cut it some slack in Vietnam -- but if this is a battle for our ideals, than it is a battle premised on a basic lie -- i.e. that Saddam was a threat (on a 45 minute trigger). That, it seems to me, is where the betrayal of our ideals lies.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by rikzilla


How 'bout the leftist wet dream which was posted by "Common Dreams" that bastion of leftist mental masturbation?

Leftist wet dream... (http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0721-04.htm)

Yeah, the left never came out and said Saddam is a good guy. No, instead they organized bus loads of idiot "shields" to Iraq.. and they had rallies with thousands of signs denouncing Bush....while remaining completely silent on Saddam himself.

I'd say that the "tacit" form of support for Saddam is pretty widespread among the left.

-z

Thanks much for proving my point!

The people on the left did not support Saddam.

[DanishDynamite]

As always, well said headscratcher4.

[jj]

Originally posted by Skeptic
[I'm sorry, Sir, but you seem to live in a fantasy land with no realtion to the real world. The choice was EITHER US involvement, OR Saddam staying in power.

Oooga, ooga.

EXCLUDED MIDDLE ALERT!

Come on, Skeptic, that's just another cheap way for you to justify the hateful things you've said about people who disagree with you.

[jj]

Originally posted by Tony



*********!! When was the last time the KKK wielded any kind of influence with mainstream voters?

I see, so Roberson, Buchanan aren't extreme right, the KKK is the only "extreme right"?

Tony, that was lame beyond belief.

Your contempt for anyone who dares to think is showing again.

[jj]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Well, this kind of helps me finish my thought about religion and America being faith based. The vast majority of Americans believe in a God of some sort or another. If that isn't a faith based population, I don't know what is.


Irrelevant to the country's origins and government, Luke, irrelevant. The constitution was designed to avoid such a tyranny of the majority.

What we see now is heavy pressure from the PART of the religious who are on the extreme right to enforce exactly that tyranny.

So, in this case, instead of coming for the Gypsies, they're coming for the Atheists.

Surely, Luke, you can see the pattern clearly?

Does that make them all "extreme Right" because they believe in God? Hardly. A belief in God alone is not enough to qualify for the "extreme" right. I would venture to say that the Jewish population tends toward the liberal side.


No, it doesn't make ALL of anyone extreme right, only the ones who ARE extreme right, say like Bush, Ashcroft, Ridge, Cheney for instance, all of whom insist on making god-plattitudes part of government.



Homosexual marriage. Two parent households. Abortion. These are the playing fields of the religious right.


Baloney. The playing ground of the extreme right is in fact rights for anyone other than them, and in their way. Look at the Texas constitution. Look at the "Pledge".


Yes. Many voters are single-issue voters. Guns. Abortions. Gay rights. Left and Right.

I don't think it is too far off the mark to say that if you know a politician's stand on gun control (JUST AS AN EXAMPLE!), you can pretty much guess a lot of the rest of his/her politics. There are exceptions, but it is a pretty good rule of thumb.

Ok, I'm anti-gun-control.

What does that say about my politics?

[Tony]

Originally posted by jj


I see, so Roberson, Buchanan aren't extreme right, the KKK is the only "extreme right"?

Tony, that was lame beyond belief.

Your contempt for anyone who dares to think is showing again.


Another one of your parodies? I hope so.

[Luke T.]

I wish people would learn how to use the vbulletin open and close quotes thingies...



Originally posted by jj
Irrelevant to the country's origins and government, Luke, irrelevant. The constitution was designed to avoid such a tyranny of the majority.

What we see now is heavy pressure from the PART of the religious who are on the extreme right to enforce exactly that tyranny.

So, in this case, instead of coming for the Gypsies, they're coming for the Atheists.

Surely, Luke, you can see the pattern clearly?

Are you following the conversation? This track started because I said America is faith based and the government isn't. What is the problem with comprehending that here?

Who is coming for the atheists? :rolleyes:

No, it doesn't make ALL of anyone extreme right, only the ones who ARE extreme right, say like Bush, Ashcroft, Ridge, Cheney for instance, all of whom insist on making god-plattitudes part of government.

And George "So Help Me God" Washington! :rolleyes:

Baloney. The playing ground of the extreme right is in fact rights for anyone other than them, and in their way. Look at the Texas constitution. Look at the "Pledge".

Which extreme right are we talking about now? The ones who are coming for the atheists? Booga booga!


Ok, I'm anti-gun-control.

What does that say about my politics?

Are you a politician? Or perhaps one of the exceptions I mentioned?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Crossbow


Well, well, that sure is nice switch.

You anti-war guys are not Saddam supporters, but
You anti-war guys are anti-America!

So I spent four years in the military, became an engineer, a volunteer EMT, a volunteer pilot, and paid my taxes just to find out that I am really anti-American since I opposed the war.

Well thank you so very much really sweet clarification, it says such a great deal about you pro-war types.

You'd be hard pressed to find an anti-war Leftie in the political arena who served, Crossbow. They are out there, but they are drowned out.

edited to add: In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone in the political arena who served, left or right.

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Luke T.


You'd be hard pressed to find an anti-war Leftie in the political arena who served, Crossbow. They are out there, but they are drowned out.

Kind of hard to find a "pro-war" rightie (in the government at least) who served (at least in harms way). I'll cut Bush a little slack for his Gaurd service (AWOL though he might be), but Chaney, Wolfowitz, etc.?

My point is, it isn't a argument about service, or who served, it should be an argument about what is best for the US and whether the country is being well served by the policy. In this case, I think not. That doesn't make me anti-American (I have worked in government for many years, not as enobling as military service, but certainly demonstrating a commitment to the nation and serving the nation). The issue for me, as stated above, is that Americans have been put in harms way, the reasons have to be good, in this case, the reasons given were to all appearances a lie.

It is a lie that costs young men and women their lives. It is a lie that will cost Americans billions of dollars.

THe capture of Saddam, though a great day for Iraqis, ultimately does little to alieviate the fact that the President stood in front of the U.S. people and asserted something as a premise for going to war that thus far has shown to not be true.

Finally, it is completely Pro-American to point this out and to speak skeptically to power and of policies.

It is even pro-American to change ones mind (remember when BUsh was opposed to Nation building?).

But, I think the greatest un-American act I can think of is to willfully lie to the US people...and so far I am not convinced that GW Bush didn't know he was lying. It was calculated to lead us into war and it resulted in the deaths of men and women willing to put their lives on the line for the national security of this nation.

That, it seems to me, is the essense of anti-American.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by jj


Oooga, ooga.

EXCLUDED MIDDLE ALERT!

Come on, Skeptic, that's just another cheap way for you to justify the hateful things you've said about people who disagree with you.

Congratulations! You just put your finger PRECISELY on why the left was wrong here, and why it was pro-Saddam for all intents and purposes.

Of course I think there's an "excluded middle" argument here: either US-led war or Saddam stays in power, not both, and not some other possiblity; therefore, if you oppose one, you necessarily support the other. But this is only a FALLACY if it is false: that is, if there is a "middle" to exclude. When I say that 2+2=4 or 2+2 is not = 4, I am "excluding the middle", too--e.g., the claim that 2+2=4 and not 4--but that is not a fallacy, because one SHOULD exclude logical contradictions.

So, please, enlighten me: how, exactly, if NOT by a US-led war, was Saddam Hussein to be toppled? A war led by the French, perhaps? More UN sanctions that Saddam would use as an excuse to starve the Iraqis? Anything? Let's put it this way: what on earth EXCEPT for a war was not tried--and failed--with Saddam? I think it's rather obvious that in this case, "remove Saddam but not with US help" is about as viable as "2+2=4 but also 2+2=not 4"; not a logical impossiblity, presumably, but certainly a practical one. "Remove Saddam AND don't involve the US!" is remiscient of the old "Saturday Night Live" faux commercial: "It's a dessert topping AND a furniture polish!".

Since it's rather obvious that in this case it WAS one or the other, there is no difference between being "against the war" and being "for Saddam's continued rule" (which is the extent to which the anti-war movement was pro-Saddam). To say "I was not FOR Saddam, I was just AGAINST the war" in this case, is a bit like saying, "I do not claim 2+2 IS different than 4, all I am saying is that it IS NOT 4". The left THINKS there is a difference--and therefore THINKS it wasn't "really" pro-Saddam--because it imagines there is a "middle" to exclude here. But that's precisely the mistake on the left's part: there isn't, so in practice, it WAS really pro-Saddam.

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Skeptic


Congratulations! You just put your finger PRECISELY on why the left was wrong here, and why it was pro-Saddam for all intents and purposes.

Of course I think there's an "excluded middle" argument here: either US-led war or Saddam stays in power, not both, and not some other possiblity; therefore, if you oppose one, you necessarily support the other. But this is only a FALLACY if it is false: that is, if there is a "middle" to exclude. When I say that 2+2=4 or 2+2 is not = 4, I am "excluding the middle", too--e.g., the claim that 2+2=4 and not 4--but that is not a fallacy, because one SHOULD exclude logical contradictions.

So, please, enlighten me: how, exactly, if NOT by a US-led war, was Saddam Hussein to be toppled? A war led by the French, perhaps? More UN sanctions that Saddam would use as an excuse to starve the Iraqis? Anything? Let's put it this way: what on earth EXCEPT for a war was not tried--and failed--with Saddam? I think it's rather obvious that in this case, "remove Saddam but not with US help" is about as viable as "2+2=4 but also 2+2=not 4"; not a logical impossiblity, presumably, but certainly a practical one. "Remove Saddam AND don't involve the US!" is remiscient of the old "Saturday Night Live" faux commercial: "It's a dessert topping AND a furniture polish!".

Since it's rather obvious that in this case it WAS one or the other, there is no difference between being "against the war" and being "for Saddam's continued rule" (which is the extent to which the anti-war movement was pro-Saddam). To say "I was not FOR Saddam, I was just AGAINST the war" in this case, is a bit like saying, "I do not claim 2+2 IS different than 4, all I am saying is that it IS NOT 4". The left THINKS there is a difference--and therefore THINKS it wasn't "really" pro-Saddam--because it imagines there is a "middle" to exclude here. But that's precisely the mistake on the left's part: there isn't, so in practice, it WAS really pro-Saddam.

It seems to me, what is missing here, is the real reason for the US to "topple" Saddam. What is it?

First, there are many bad leaders in the world...leaders who kill, torture, abuse their citizens -- Mugabe, Kim Il Jung, etc. Is it now our policy to unilaterally topple them? Has Bush said so? If not, how do we determine who gets toppled and who doesn't? What is the scale of "bad" leaders/government that you/we should apply?

Second, why topple Saddam? So far as has been shown todate, and in spite of Administration assertions to the contrary, he does not appear to have been a direct security threat to the United States. The WMDs either don't exist or were so crude and primative as to be of doubtful effectiveness (I say this, though none has been found). Saddam's army did not threaten the US. His Navy did not threaten US shipping, supplies or vessles. IS perceived threat enough? And, note, that it wasn't "perceived" threat that the Administration used to justify the war...they claimed it was an active threat (WMDs on 45 minute warning).

There is no doubt that the world is better off without Saddam. But, lying to justify that end remains a lie and remains bad policy, bad policy means that young American men and women will die and that we all will be paying for it (economiocally) for a long time to come.

Now, if you want to argue that we engage in a crusade -- democratic countries and coalitions of the willing -- to topple evil dictators who kill their own people, crush democracy, etc. -- than lets say it, get public agreemtn to it and do it...I might even be with you. But, it seems to me that we should start amongst some of the powers included in the coalition of the willing if that is going to be our policy.

In the end, all I want is to have my governmetn tell me some semblance of the truth when they are putting lives on the line. THis government, as of today, fails that test.

[jj]

Originally posted by Skeptic


Congratulations! You just put your finger PRECISELY on why the left was wrong here, and why it was pro-Saddam for all intents and purposes.


Have you done your patriotic duty yet, then?

If not, you're liable yourself according to THAT law, I believe.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by headscratcher4


Kind of hard to find a "pro-war" rightie (in the government at least) who served (at least in harms way). I'll cut Bush a little slack for his Gaurd service (AWOL though he might be), but Chaney, Wolfowitz, etc.?

My point is, it isn't a argument about service, or who served, it should be an argument about what is best for the US and whether the country is being well served by the policy. In this case, I think not. That doesn't make me anti-American (I have worked in government for many years, not as enobling as military service, but certainly demonstrating a commitment to the nation and serving the nation). The issue for me, as stated above, is that Americans have been put in harms way, the reasons have to be good, in this case, the reasons given were to all appearances a lie.

It is a lie that costs young men and women their lives. It is a lie that will cost Americans billions of dollars.

THe capture of Saddam, though a great day for Iraqis, ultimately does little to alieviate the fact that the President stood in front of the U.S. people and asserted something as a premise for going to war that thus far has shown to not be true.

Finally, it is completely Pro-American to point this out and to speak skeptically to power and of policies.

It is even pro-American to change ones mind (remember when BUsh was opposed to Nation building?).

But, I think the greatest un-American act I can think of is to willfully lie to the US people...and so far I am not convinced that GW Bush didn't know he was lying. It was calculated to lead us into war and it resulted in the deaths of men and women willing to put their lives on the line for the national security of this nation.

That, it seems to me, is the essense of anti-American.

I'm glad my edit of my post about it being hard to find a politician on the right who served, too, is time-stamped earlier than your post! :D

headscratcher, your arguments are well-reasoned and very sound, and I admire your posts a great deal even though I may hold a differing political position.

Unfortunately, we are stereotyping here and you aren't playing fair! Get with the program you commie! :D

My own position on the Left is that a lot of good-intentioned people are being exploited by an influential few. So it with the Right, too, I know.

"Good intentions" doesn't imply "well-informed", though. So a lot of good intentioned people are serving as useful idiots for those who have a very anti-American goal, IMHO.

As I get older, I find a lot of my right-wing beliefs being tempered. I still am a conservative deep inside, but I try to do my part to break out of the stereotype. For my own sake and for the sake of conservatism.

I guess what I would like to see the well-intentioned folks on the opposite side of the issues from me is to shirk off the anti-American element who have hijacked their good intentions. They are there. It is undeniable. Just type "war crimes" in google on any given day, even a day like today when the Iraqi war crimes tribunal is all over the news, and there will be at least one site claiming U.S. war crimes on the first page of results. That is way out of whack.

[Ed]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
I can't speak for other "leftists", only my self.

And, I am afraid history will judge us poorly (though, certainly, not as poorly as Saddam or those who would put him on a pedestal)..not be cause of our "imperial" ambitions, but because of hubris, hypocracy and a basic betrayal of what I believe America stands for. For all of our faults, we fought for our ideals in WWII, I am even willing to cut it some slack in Vietnam -- but if this is a battle for our ideals, than it is a battle premised on a basic lie -- i.e. that Saddam was a threat (on a 45 minute trigger). That, it seems to me, is where the betrayal of our ideals lies.

No one will care in 50 years, in a hundred it will be completely forgotten. The footnote that it will get is that a murderous tyrant was deposed in 2003. The issues that loom so large in some eyes (did we humiliate Saddam, it was for oil, etc) will be seen for what they are in an historical context: Irrelevant.

If there is progress in developing stability and some bastardized version of Democracy in the ME after this point, some might, a hundred years from now, argue that this was a turning point.

Let us argue and fret. But let us not delude ourselves that what we are arguing about is particularly important, except here, for the moment, and for our amusement.

[jj]

Originally posted by Luke T.
IAre you following the conversation? This track started because I said America is faith based and the government isn't. What is the problem with comprehending that here?

Yes, that's how it started. First, "America" isn't faith-based unless you're saying I'm not an American. Did you really mean that? I'm not faith-based.

Who is coming for the atheists? :rolleyes:

Look, I'm trying to be nice to you. For some reason I find that you actually seem to be a likable, human soul, but this is about my limit.

If you can't see the obvious intent in asking for a religious oath at the beginning of the school day, there's little to say, is there?

And George "So Help Me God" Washington! :rolleyes:

And have you read his letters to the continental congress? I think you need to figure out some of old George's ironic tendencies, too. He was probably a deist of some sort, yes. This proves what? Say, oh, Patrick Henry, Franklin, ...

Which extreme right are we talking about now? The ones who are coming for the atheists? Booga booga!

Oh, let's see, the GHB "Atheists are neither good americans nor patriots, this is one nation under god" quote has nothing to do with this?

Buchanan's attempt to lay the WTC attacks on the secular community? Yes, he's a nutcase, but he's a powerful nutcase, and we both know that, Luke.

The rightist extremists who say that all public officers must swear to be deists (check the Texas constitution), would that be part of it?

The list is long, Luke.

Are you a politician? Or perhaps one of the exceptions I mentioned?
I'm not a politician, and I'm anti-gun-control.

So what does that make me? Even if I'm an exception what does that make me?

[headscratcher4]

If there is progress in developing stability and some bastardized version of Democracy in the ME after this point, some might, a hundred years from now, argue that this was a turning point.

"If" indeed, you may be right. But, I live right now. This sounds like a post hoc rationalization. DId we invade because of a security threat? Did we invade because we wanted to make progress in developing some sort of bastardized democracy in the ME?

In a hundred years it probably won't matter...and given the villians of the last 100 -- Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. even Saddam and his measly hundereds of thousands dead might seem like a small time despot.

And, I keep coming back to it...a result that looks good in a hundred years but which is premised on what I can only conclude was a knowing lie -- i.e. an imminent security threat posed by Iraq -- can't be a good way to make policy -- at least, in my opinion, not in this bastardized democracy.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Luke T.


I know you guys are waiting on Skeptic, but I'd like to put my two cents in on this.

I don't like to lump everyone to the left of me together. For one thing, some people are left of me on some things while they aren't on others.

What concerns me is that the extreme left seems to have an undue influence on the power structure. We can see that by Dean (and others) kowtowing/bowing and scraping to the far left during the campaign to win the Democratic nomination. Once whoever secures the nomination becomes the Democratic Party candidate, that person will then have to suddenly shift gears toward the center to attract the majority.

The Republicans are not immune from this problem in the other direction. But I don't believe the extreme right has nearly as much influence on the Republicans as the extreme Left has on the Democrats. The extreme left gets away with language the right would be crucified for.

Dean is one of the most liberal/lefty candidates out there. So why is he the leader right now?

Most democrats probably aren't as left as he is, but they will be stuck with him because the far left has the power and the money and thus the influence. That's the problem.

Democrats need to reject the far left candidates early in the primaries and forget about who has the most ads or who the media says is ahead.

Funny, because the left-wing pollies in Australia seem to be pandering to the right. For example, they lost an election by being silent on the issue of illegal immigrants. Sorry, did I say they were silent?

The Howard government basically said that all illegal immigrants who hit Australian shores would be tossed back to where they came from- in violation of international agreements Australia is a part of. The Labor party could have pointed this out, but kept mum instead. In fact, they seemed to be all for sending 'em back where they came from as well. Say what you want on illegal immigrants, but the position of the left is not send 'em back, at least not until you find out if more than half (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/04/08/1017206315944.html) of them might be genuine refugees.

More recently, Mark Latham, leader of the Labor party, said he was not against the death penalty for Saddam Hussein. You couldn't imagine a Labor leader saying this fifteen years ago. The only reason he doesn't take a stand on it now is because he wants to continue pandering to the right.

All I'm saying is, maybe the idea that the left or right holds some kind of sway over politicians is a matter of preception.

And, honestly... How much more power would you like to see the right have on American politics? You guys already seem to think you can do whatever you want as it is.

[Ed]

Originally posted by headscratcher4


"If" indeed, you may be right. But, I live right now. This sounds like a post hoc rationalization. DId we invade because of a security threat? Did we invade because we wanted to make progress in developing some sort of bastardized democracy in the ME?

.

I'm not rationalizing anything, I am responding to an observation that I thought was flawed..

[DanishDynamite]

Ed:No one will care in 50 years, in a hundred it will be completely forgotten. The footnote that it will get is that a murderous tyrant was deposed in 2003. The issues that loom so large in some eyes (did we humiliate Saddam, it was for oil, etc) will be seen for what they are in an historical context: Irrelevant.

If there is progress in developing stability and some bastardized version of Democracy in the ME after this point, some might, a hundred years from now, argue that this was a turning point. Ed, in a hundred years the invasion itself may be forgotten. Hell, even the US or Europe may be forgotten. We can all speculate on the judgement of history and such speculation, while entertaining, is itself irrelvant.
Let us argue and fret. But let us not delude ourselves that what we are arguing about is particularly important, except here, for the moment, and for our amusement.The problem with the viewpoint that "the end justifies the means", is that anyone can use it. Anyone, including suicide bombers and Al Queda.

[GroundStrength]

Originally posted by jj

I'm not a politician, and I'm anti-gun-control.

So what does that make me? Even if I'm an exception what does that make me?

Hopefully what I am becoming, someone who thinks for themselves. Too many labels, too much anger towards someone who doesn't have the same label as someone else. If they (and I mean those in power both left anf right) keep us hating each other then we really don't look at what they are doing from a fresh point of view. It is not just on this board but in real-life as well. Don't let politics become your religion. I say we all kick back and have a beer or two and thank somebody or something that we live in this pretty-good country.

[Ed]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Ed:Ed, in a hundred years the invasion itself may be forgotten. Hell, even the US or Europe may be forgotten. We can all speculate on the judgement of history and such speculation, while entertaining, is itself irrelvant.
The problem with the viewpoint that "the end justifies the means", is that anyone can use it. Anyone, including suicide bombers and Al Queda.

I am not justifing anything. I am simply making an observation.

[Luke T.]

Text deleted due to double posting and for some reason I am not allowed to delete the post itself.

[Luke T.]

jj, a small favor. Could you please use the quote and /quote thingies? It is making it difficult for me to reply to you properly.

Originally posted by jj
Yes, that's how it started. First, "America" isn't faith-based unless you're saying I'm not an American. Did you really mean that? I'm not faith-based.

*sigh* Obviously not every American is faith based. But as a whole, America certainly is predominantly faith based.

Look, I'm trying to be nice to you. For some reason I find that you actually seem to be a likable, human soul, but this is about my limit.

If you can't see the obvious intent in asking for a religious oath at the beginning of the school day, there's little to say, is there?

Intent? I do believe saying the pledge of allegiance is optional. Please show me if it isn't.

And have you read his letters to the continental congress? I think you need to figure out some of old George's ironic tendencies, too. He was probably a deist of some sort, yes. This proves what? Say, oh, Patrick Henry, Franklin, ...

You are missing the second half of my statement. The government is not faith based. That was the original claim made by shecky. To wit: "The problem with the right is that it's faith based government." I sought merely to correct that statement by saying America might be faith based, but the government is not. Separation of church and state. In another topic, I even explained how the clergy in early America actually promoted the idea of separation of church and state.


Oh, let's see, the GHB "Atheists are neither good americans nor patriots, this is one nation under god" quote has nothing to do with this?

And has anyone come for you? Have your rights been infringed upon for being an atheist?

Buchanan's attempt to lay the WTC attacks on the secular community? Yes, he's a nutcase, but he's a powerful nutcase, and we both know that, Luke.

Yes, he is a nutcase. I'm not sure how that applies here.

The rightist extremists who say that all public officers must swear to be deists (check the Texas constitution), would that be part of it?

Did you know that the New York Constitution used to exclude clergymen from public office? And that was in the good old days of the early 19th century!

I hope you aren't confusing the state of Texas for all of America.

From the Texas constitution, Article 1, section 6:


All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences. No man shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent. No human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society or mode of worship. But it shall be the duty of the Legislature to pass such laws as may be necessary to protect equally every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship.

Article 16, Section 1:


All elected and appointed officers, before they enter upon the duties of their offices, shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: "I, _______________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I will faithfully execute the duties of the office of ___________________ of the State of Texas, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this State, so help me God."

Blame George Washington. He set the precedent.

Article 1, Section 4:


No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

That certainly sounds like a contradiction. No religious test, but you have to acknowledge a Supreme Being.

What are the people of Texas doing about it?

I honestly don't know if the U.S. Constitutional separation of church and State applies to individual states. If it does, I am surprised it has not been challenged in the courts, or has it?

The list is long, Luke.

If you mean the influence of religion is great upon our nation, I do not dispute that at all.

I'm not a politician, and I'm anti-gun-control.

So what does that make me? Even if I'm an exception what does that make me?

A libertarian? :D

I don't know, jj. What does it make you?

Without looking it up, I would guess that Dean is pro gun-control, pro-abortion and pro-more-taxes. I would guess that most, if not all, of the current Democratic presidential candidates are, too.

(edited to correct typos)

[Furious]

With all due respect headscratcher, the lies told by Bush were not from his own mouth:

http://www.rightwingnews.com/john/wmd.php

You'll have to forgive the source, it is of course an awful site for bias. The State of the Union and address to the U.N. are the relevant quotes. I chose this link because it managed to combine them bothand provides some other quotes from other leading political thought from people who could hardly be considered pro-Bush.

At any rate, Bush did not lie. The intelligence was probably faulty and his administration did little to quell the WMD and imminent danger overhype, but at no time did he simply say the war was just about WMD and Al Queda connections. Those issues simply resonated as hot issues with a vast majority of the media and the public on both the right and the left focusing on them.

You may also find it interesting that the previous administration also thought the Hussein administration wasn't exactly forthcoming and was proven to have significant amounts of WMD at some point:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

Clinton was fairly satisfied with how the inspections were going, but definitely felt the threat of force was necessary to continue to keep pressure on Hussein to comply with inspections.

Bush has actually used force, but given the amount of time Iraq had to comply with the U.N., the fairly obviousness of Iraq's obsfucation in proving that it no longer had WMD and a post 9/11 environment where any threat should be taken with a degree of seriousness, I don't think this administration's actions are entirely unjustified, though probably hasty without U.N support.

I agree that post-hoc rationalization for a war is unjustified, but I think that accusation is clearly not the case given Bush's Sept 12 speech to the United Nations. Right wing pundits and media may be considered guilty (since they were the ones who were overemphasizing WMD and links Al Queda), but not Bush himself.

I agree the WMD argument is not valid anymore , but I don't know if there was a good way to know that for sure before the war given Hussein's stubbornness in being forthright about his weapons programs.

I haven't fully decided on whether the invasion was completely justified or not, but I don't feel like I've been intentionally or completely misled about it.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I've been looking at the history of this thing.

When the USA supported Saddam in the 1980s against Iran--seeing him as the lesser of two evils--the left was all agog with how awful he is. His victims (the Kurds, the Marsh Arabs) were the darlings of the left.

Then Saddam made a mistake and attacked Kuwait. Suddently, a US invasion was planned. Almost overnight, Saddam's victims became an anathema to the left, part of the "propaganda" against Iraq and a justification of G. Bush, Sr., "imperialist war". Down with "Saddam is a murderer", up with "no blood for oil".

Then, due to many reasons, Saddam was kept in power (to the delight of those who saw it as proof of "the failure of American imperialism"), and UN sanctions were imposed, with US support. Since the sanctions were due to US support, the left began a campaign villifying the sanctions as the cause of "genocide", and demanding their unconditional lifting. Of course, the fact that Saddam had more than enough money even after the sanctions to feed and clothe his people, but deliberately starved them as a political tool, was ignored or derided as irrelevant. It's all the US fault, for insisting on sanctions.

Then GWB and Tony Blair showed a resolution to invade Iraq. Overnight, of course, the UN and its sanctions became the darling of the left; the same people who were ranting on how evil the sanctions were, started to explain how effective and wonderful they are, proof that "international pressure and world opinion" are efficient when fighting dictators like Saddam, and why there is no reason at all to actually fight a war.

Get the point? First Saddam bad, then Saddam good. First sanctions bad, then sanctions good. First his victims matter, then (before the first gulf war) they are "war-justifying propaganda", then they matter again, as long as they can be blamed on "evil US sanctions", then they are "propaganda" again (before te second gulf war). Cearly, what matters is not the facts, but the burning desire to always be on the opposite side than the USA, no matter WHAT the USA does--like a five-year-old acting the contrarian.

It's sad, really. In the past, the left--whatever its faults--could AT LEAST be counted on to oppose Fascism. Nowadays, fascists like Saddam are the darlings of the left... merely because the USA finally decided to do something about them, and therefore such "imperialist war-mongering" must be opposed by all right thinking people If "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", which I don't actually think is all that accurate, the left has been adding quite a bunch of sleazy "friends" to their war against "evil American imperialism"...

Well as a leftist i have to say that
1. I supported the Iraq War I, because it was such a clear cut case of unprovoked warfare.
2. I never thought that it was a good idea to support Iraq vs Iran, stupid that was.
3. I supported the sanctions but felt that we dropped the ball in the post Iraq War I, but i don't recall why we didn't stomp on saddam then, I was not real happy with the way we left the anti-Saddam factions hanging.
4. I opposed Iraq War II for reasons that are personal, I felt that there were other ways to resolve the issue, but given the lack of support for the alternatives, there was little else that GWB could do.

I have not protested the war since it began, I feel that perhaps there are leftists who do as you say, but then again there are those of us who do not.

I am a leftist who abhors fascism, which means I really don't like some of the sleaze balls that our gubiment is suddenly cuddling up too. Pakistan most prominent, followed quickly by a list of countries that destroy thier citizens and practise terror on thier citizens.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Furious
With all due respect headscratcher, the lies told by Bush were not from his own mouth:

Bush has actually used force, but given the amount of time Iraq had to comply with the U.N., the fairly obviousness of Iraq's obsfucation in proving that it no longer had WMD and a post 9/11 environment where any threat should be taken with a degree of seriousness, I don't think this administration's actions are entirely unjustified, though probably hasty without U.N support.

I agree that post-hoc rationalization for a war is unjustified, but I think that accusation is clearly not the case given Bush's Sept 12 speech to the United Nations. Right wing pundits and media may be considered guilty (since they were the ones who were overemphasizing WMD and links Al Queda), but not Bush himself.



Bush's 12 September speech to the UN (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html)

Two paragraphs on the repression of Iraq's own people
One paragraph on returning prisoners
One paragraph on harbouring terrorists (including the statement, "And al Qaeda terrorists escaped from Afghanistan and are known to be in Iraq.")
At least six paragraphs on weapons of mass destruction.

Who did you say was overempasizing WMD's again?

[Mr Manifesto]

Another speech with rather a lot more emphasis on WMD's than human rights (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html)

(and another 9/11 reference, too!)

[Furious]

Who did you say was overempasizing WMD's again?

But where did Bush lie?

Or are you implying Bush has the monopoly on overemphasis of issues that resonate?

You aren't denying that he mentioned several other reasons for the invasion in the Sept 12. speech to the U.N. By your own admission, 40% of the "volume" for the justification didn't involve WMDs.

Look, I'm no Bush backer. I simply mean to point out to Headscratcher that to feel "tricked" into a justification for war means he wasn't paying as close attention as he could have.

[Luke T.]

To say that Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq is to state an incomplete sentence.

The complete sentence would be that the leaders of France, Germany, Russia, Guinea, Mexico, Pakistan, Spain, Syria, United Kingdom, United States, Angola, Bulgaria, Cameroon, China and Chile lied about WMDs in Iraq.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Luke T.
To say that Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq is to state an incomplete sentence.

The complete sentence would be that the leaders of France, Germany, Russia, Guinea, Mexico, Pakistan, Spain, Syria, United Kingdom, United States, Angola, Bulgaria, Cameroon, China and Chile lied about WMDs in Iraq.

Your forgat UN.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Grammatron


Your forgat UN.

THose are the members of the U.N. Security Council, which unanimously approved Resolution 1441.

The beef we had with France, Germany, Russia and China was not over whether or not Hussein had WMDs. It was over what to do about it.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Fine post Skeptic,

The real change this time is how the Democratic party has been so co-opted by the angry/contrarian left. Did you see Dean's speech after the capture of Saddam? Disgusting!


I totally agree. He's now running around saying "The US is still not safe!". Well, duh. Whatta maroon.

Imagine that, a front runner for the Democratic Presidential nomination,...expressing sour political grapes over the capture of an avowed mortal enemy of the nation he hopes to lead!


And I think Al Gore may have committed political suicide *again* by publicly backing Dean immediately prior to the capture of Saddam.


Why doesn't the Democratic party just cut out the middleman and nominate Saddam himself!?

-z

They are way too busy stabbing each other in the back right now to notice that we have captured their leader, Saddam.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Dancing David
3. I supported the sanctions but felt that we dropped the ball in the post Iraq War I, but i don't recall why we didn't stomp on saddam then, I was not real happy with the way we left the anti-Saddam factions hanging.

Thank you. That makes exactly three leftists I've seen admitting to having supported sanctions.

As for why, a couple of things. The war was originally supposed to have been limited to getting Iraq out of Kuwait. It probably shouldn't have been, in retrospect. But there was also the public reaction to footage of the retreat. If you recall, Allied forces attacked the vehicles. Standard and probably correct warfare practice, but there was a negative public reaction.

[epepke]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
I can't speak for other "leftists", only my self.

I oppose the war today because the President of the United States and his Administration, in so far as I currently have evidence, lied to me.

This is what bugs me about the left.

As soon as the first phalanx of armored vehicled went into Iraq, the issue of supporting the war became entirely moot. The question of issue immediately became what should be done about the aftermath of the war, what form the occupation would take, how long it would last, etc. And, once the occupation began, the question is about when and how withdrawal should happen.

Unless you have a time machine in your basement, saying that you "oppose the war today" is nothing more than neener-neener boo-booism. The war happened. Truly, it is history. It is in the "past" portion of our light cone. It is every bit as vapid to support or oppose it as it would be to support or oppose Columbus going to America.

If you were to say that you're ticked off about the faulty intelligence that was used to support the war, that would be fine. So am I. But to say that you oppose the war is just in cheerful disregard of the laws of physics.

[Nasarius]

Originally posted by epepke


This is what bugs me about the left.

As soon as the first phalanx of armored vehicled went into Iraq, the issue of supporting the war became entirely moot. The question of issue immediately became what should be done about the aftermath of the war, what form the occupation would take, how long it would last, etc. And, once the occupation began, the question is about when and how withdrawal should happen.

Unless you have a time machine in your basement, saying that you "oppose the war today" is nothing more than neener-neener boo-booism. The war happened. Truly, it is history. It is in the "past" portion of our light cone. It is every bit as vapid to support or oppose it as it would be to support or oppose Columbus going to America.

If you were to say that you're ticked off about the faulty intelligence that was used to support the war, that would be fine. So am I. But to say that you oppose the war is just in cheerful disregard of the laws of physics.

You're just being pedantic. Yeah, he could have probably chosen a clearer term than "oppose", but really. It's not like anyone has to just accept the fact that the war happened and move on. Why it happened and whether or not it was at all justified is still very much worth investigating.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Skeptic
- we don't like Islamic countries because we don't understand them and their attitides and values quite frankly alarm us

Actually, you got it the wrong way. The US UNDERSTANDS islamic culture.

The US understands its own caricature of Islam based upon a skewed view provided by a few fundamentalists. This view is equally false as a view of Catholicism based upon the views and deeds of the IRA or a view of atheism based upon the views and deeds of Stalin.

This completely hysterical view of Islam means that the US feels that it needs to control a whole culture by force which only adds to the fundamentalists' belief that they're continually under attack (which fundamentalists always believe that they are).

The US and its way of life is under no threat from Islam UNLESS in the process of fighting a monster or its own imagining it actually manages to create the thing it was trying to prevent.

Of course, if Islam wished to make the US uncomfortable all it would need to do is withdraw oil sales and re-patriate the billions of dollars which underwrite the US budget deficit.

edited to reduce the mis-spelling count to double figures

[The Fool]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal

They are way too busy stabbing each other in the back right now to notice that we have captured their leader, Saddam.





Was this your own work or did rik PM you some of his spare stupidity?

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by the Don:
The US understands its own caricature of Islam based upon a skewed view provided by a few fundamentalists. This view is equally false as a view of Catholicism based upon the views and deeds of the IRA or a view of atheism based upon the views and deeds of Stalin.

Hasn't GWB and his administration been scrupulously careful NOT to caricature Islam as a religion of violence? Hasn't the US been eager to forge alliances with Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

This completely hysterical view of Islam means that the US feels that it needs to control a whole culture by force which only adds to the fundamentalists' belief that they're continually under attack (which fundamentalists always believe that they are).

How has the US sought to control a whole culture by force?

The US and its way of life is under no threat from Islam UNLESS in the process of fighting a monster or its own imagining it actually manages to create the thing it was trying to prevent.

So fundamentalist Islam isn't a serious threat?

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Shane Costello


Hasn't GWB and his administration been scrupulously careful NOT to caricature Islam as a religion of violence? Hasn't the US been eager to forge alliances with Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.



How has the US sought to control a whole culture by force?



So fundamentalist Islam isn't a serious threat?

Shane, you are forgetting how the game gets played.

Never mind that GWB went to mosques in the US shortly after 9/11 to show support.

Never mind that GWB and Tony Blair have been falling overthemselves praising Islam as a religion of peace.

They still know that GWB is trying to force his cultrue on Islam...

And those situational ethics again.
That the US is friendly with Saudi Arabia and Egypt might be ok to show that the US is not trying to change their culture, but remember this is another example of "The US cozying up to a dictator..."

(Psst...Unlike Germany and France with the former USSR and their deals on the pipeline, or unlike the huge amount of loans they gave Saddam in the 90s for weapons. People see what they want to see.)

[Mr Manifesto]

Does imposing Free Trade on a country count?

"A time of historic opportunity has arrived," Bush said. "A dictator in Iraq has been removed from power. The terrorists of that region are now seeing their fate, the short, unhappy life of the fugitive. Reformers in the Middle East are gaining influence, and the momentum of freedom is growing."

The United States, Bush said, "will seize this moment for the sake of peace."

"So I propose the establishment of a U.S.-Middle East free trade area within a decade, to bring the Middle East into an expanding circle of opportunity, to provide hope for the people who live in that region."


source (http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/summit/text2003/0509bushfta.htm)

[The Don]

Shane,

I took my own remarks out of context.

I was responding specifically to Skepitc

Actually, you got it the wrong way. The US UNDERSTANDS islamic culture. It understands that, unless islamism (the political movement whose goal is a sharia-based world, as opposed to Islam, the religion) will be defeated or contained by force, it will spread throughout the world, like fascism and communism threathened to do before. The USA also understands that the real problem that lets islamism spread is that most muslim societies, for historical reasons, are theocratic and authoritarian, thus letting extremists gain control easily--much like Russia and Germany had traditional autocratic, centralized structure which made it easier for the Communists or Nazis to harness the country to their extreme cause once in power.

It is the LEFT that has no undestanding of Muslim culture. It is the left who hesitates to say Bin Laden and co. are evil thugs as to not "insult" muslims, or who considers polygamy, stoning, and so on perfectly all right and not at all against human rights... as long as they're "part of the culture of traditional (read: primitive, opressive, backwards) islamic society". It is the LEFT that thinks all the ideals it cherishes--sexual equality, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, etc.--should simply stop at the frontier of the muslim world, lest such "strange values be imposed on a different culture", as the Muslim world--or, more precsiely, the islamist who control it, since the masses in that world, especially the women, have no say about anything--keeps telling them. It is the LEFT, in other words, that thinks that opression, subjugation of women, and opressive state religion is the best Muslims deserve; they are, after all, "a traditional culture", which must mean they LIKE being opressed. Why "wage a war on Islam" by defeating Saddam Hussein, then?

The left, after all, looked at all the official spokesmen from these governments, and read all the articles in their state-controlled press (or, rather, in English translation--most of those who wag their fingers at the USA's "misundertanding of Islamic culture" cannot read a word of Arabic, let alone Farsi or Pashtun), and whaddaya know? All the authocratic state controlled papers AGREE with them that democracy and freedom is not something the Muslims need! What more proof do you want?

SOMEBODY here misunderstands Muslim society... but it isn't the USA.

Where he advocated "containing or Defeating" Islam "by force"

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Luke T.


You'd be hard pressed to find an anti-war Leftie in the political arena who served, Crossbow. They are out there, but they are drowned out.

edited to add: In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone in the political arena who served, left or right.

Luke, I would have to say that guys like you, Rikzilla, Skeptic, are quite stupid.

You have been shown again, again, and again, that just about every reason those in authority gave for this war were based on (at the very least) very incorrect data, yet you continue to call the people who opposed the war "Saddam supporters" and "anti-Americans".

Well if that is your opinion, then you can live with it and what is left of your concise.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by The Fool


Was this your own work or did rik PM you some of his spare stupidity?

Fool,

You should lose the Pirsig quote...his philosophy is solidly in favor of the removal of Saddam by the forces of "Dynamic Quality" (aka as the USA)

" While sustaining biological and social patterns
Kill all intellectual patterns
Kill them completely
And then follow Dynamic Quality
And morality will be served. "

- Lila Chap 32, the Metaphysics of Quality

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by the Don;
Shane,

I took my own remarks out of context.

I was responding specifically to Skepitc

And in fairness to Skeptic he referred to "islamism" rather than islam per se. As far as I can judge the nearest he came to denouncing all of Islam was when he said that the cultural and religious context of most Islamic countries can give rise to conditions conducive to the rise of fundamentalism.

Originally posted by MikeB.
(Psst...Unlike Germany and France with the former USSR and their deals on the pipeline, or unlike the huge amount of loans they gave Saddam in the 90s for weapons. People see what they want to see.)

Not to mention efforts in France to prevent Muslim schoolgirls from wearing headscarves. What would the reaction be if they tried to do that in Texas?

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Crossbow


Luke, I would have to say that guys like you, Rikzilla, Skeptic, are quite stupid.

You have been shown again, again, and again, that just about every reason those in authority gave for this war were based on (at the very least) very incorrect data, yet you continue to call the people who opposed the war "Saddam supporters" and "anti-Americans".

Well if that is your opinion, then you can live with it and what is left of your concise.

Crossbow calling me stupid is like the Grand Dragon of the KKK calling me a "race traitor". Coming from you Crossbow, scorn is a compliment.

You are not fit to shine the shoes of a guy like Skeptic. And Luke? He's the guy you could win over to your side with rational arguments that had real merit....but since you haven't any you seek merely to call him names.

Way to win friends there CB. Pilots usually are renowned for their judgement....if this is an indication of the level of your judgement then I for one would never fly with you.

-z

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Shane Costello


Not to mention efforts in France to prevent Muslim schoolgirls from wearing headscarves. What would the reaction be if they tried to do that in Texas?

Of course, if that was the case, the "Guardian" would have a lot of editorials about how that shows Xian fundamentalists have taken over America...blah...blah...

[Skeptic]

Luke, I would have to say that guys like you, Rikzilla, Skeptic, are quite stupid.

(slapping my forehead)

Of COURSE! THAT is why I disagree with you! What other reason could there possibly be???

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Crossbow


Luke, I would have to say that guys like you, Rikzilla, Skeptic, are quite stupid.

You have been shown again, again, and again, that just about every reason those in authority gave for this war were based on (at the very least) very incorrect data, yet you continue to call the people who opposed the war "Saddam supporters" and "anti-Americans".

Well if that is your opinion, then you can live with it and what is left of your concise.

Crossbow, I don't think you will find a statement by me anywhere that people who opposed the war in Iraq are "Saddam supporters." I think I would remember saying something like that.

I also took great pains during the debates prior to, and shortly after, the war in Iraq to say that not everyone who opposed the war was even "anti-American." I did beseech them, however, to please exercise some caution when attaching their name or face to an organization that was ostensibly organizing protests against the war. I believed, and still strongly believe, that the true motivations of some of the organizations are anti-American and could really care less about the war in Iraq except as a vehicle to trash the U.S.

I am deeply sorry if these comments are taken by you personally to mean that I think you are anti-American. Nothing could be further from the truth, unless you are a card carrying member of one of those organizations, which I have no idea if you are or not.
If not, then my comments about anti-Americanism have no application to you whatsoever.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Nasarius


You're just being pedantic. Yeah, he could have probably chosen a clearer term than "oppose", but really. It's not like anyone has to just accept the fact that the war happened and move on. Why it happened and whether or not it was at all justified is still very much worth investigating.

I don't think I'm just being pedantic.

This is another problem that I have when attempting to communicate with leftists. Surprise! I agree that it is very much worth investigating, and I hope that Bush is defeated by the largest landslide in history.

But as far as I can tell, the left just doesn't stand for or against anything any more. It's all devolved to magic-marker histories and saying "neener neener boo boo."

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Crossbow calling me stupid is like the Grand Dragon of the KKK calling me a "race traitor". Coming from you Crossbow, scorn is a compliment.

You are not fit to shine the shoes of a guy like Skeptic. And Luke? He's the guy you could win over to your side with rational arguments that had real merit....but since you haven't any you seek merely to call him names.

Way to win friends there CB. Pilots usually are renowned for their judgement....if this is an indication of the level of your judgement then I for one would never fly with you.

-z

You are right about one thing, I am not fit to shine the shoes of Skeptic, therefore I will excuse myself from ever doing such a thing.

Second, as for "judgments" issue you raised, I would remind you (and everyone else) that you once challenged me to a duel, then you tried to set the terms of the duel, then you were the one who withdrew the challenge.

By the way, I decided quite some time ago to limit my personal contact with you after you called me a "Saddam supporter".

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Crossbow, I don't think you will find a statement by me anywhere that people who opposed the war in Iraq are "Saddam supporters." I think I would remember saying something like that.

I also took great pains during the debates prior to, and shortly after, the war in Iraq to say that not everyone who opposed the war was even "anti-American." I did beseech them, however, to please exercise some caution when attaching their name or face to an organization that was ostensibly organizing protests against the war. I believed, and still strongly believe, that the true motivations of some of the organizations are anti-American and could really care less about the war in Iraq except as a vehicle to trash the U.S.

I am deeply sorry if these comments are taken by you personally to mean that I think you are anti-American. Nothing could be further from the truth, unless you are a card carrying member of one of those organizations, which I have no idea if you are or not.
If not, then my comments about anti-Americanism have no application to you whatsoever.

Well Luke you did not use the term "Saddam supporter" but you did indeed use the term "anti-American" to describe those who opposed the war.

And just to let you know, I did take it as a personal insult that I was being called an anti-American simply because I opposed the war. But more than that, I was angry because you were essentially saying that anyone who opposed the war was anti-American, and that really made me angry considering just how false the justifications for the said war have proved to be.

I have looked, and so far I have not even seen one case where an anti-war person sent Saddam money, supplied him with weapons, or any material aid whatsoever so I fail to see how anti-war people could be called anti-American.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Crossbow


You are right about one thing, I am not fit to shine the shoes of Skeptic, therefore I will excuse myself from ever doing such a thing.

Second, as for "judgments" issue you raised, I would remind you (and everyone else) that you once challenged me to a duel, then you tried to set the terms of the duel, then you were the one who withdrew the challenge.

By the way, I decided quite some time ago to limit my personal contact with you after you called me a "Saddam supporter".

Did I? I have no recollection of such a duel. I do remember asking you to let me know next time you land @ HEF. I fly there all the time...perhaps you took it as a threat? You neglected to mention which field you frequent...but hell man, I only wanted to buy you a beer. You should be less skittish my "girly-man" friend. Don't you know that threats of violence are against the JREF rules? If I have done that to you, you should report me.

If not, you should stop your whining and try to be a man.

-z

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Crossbow


Well Luke you did not use the term "Saddam supporter" but you did indeed use the term "anti-American" to describe those who opposed the war.

And just to let you know, I did take it as a personal insult that I was being called an anti-American simply because I opposed the war. But more than that, I was angry because you were essentially saying that anyone who opposed the war was anti-American, and that really made me angry considering just how false the justifications for the said war have proved to be.

I have looked, and so far I have not even seen one case where an anti-war person sent Saddam money, supplied him with weapons, or any material aid whatsoever so I fail to see how anti-war people could be called anti-American.

I did not use the term "anti-American" to describe those who opposed the war. I have taken great pains time and time again to ensure everyone understands that I do not believe everyone who opposed the war is "anti-American." This is at least the second time just in this topic I have taken pains to explain just to you that I don't think you are "anti-American" for opposing the war.

When I refer to "the Left," I explained that I am not trying to lump everyone together under that category. There are people who are to the left of me on some issues while to the right of me on others. For me to consider them as "the Left" would not be accurate, and I don't. You are one of those.

If you go back and re-read my posts you will see that. By "the Left" in the context of this topic, I mean those who exercise influence in our society and upon our elected officials. Some, and by no means all, of "the Left" don't give a hoot about Iraq or the war unless they can use it as a vehicle to trash the U.S. It is plain by the hypocrisy they demonstrate in the points made by Skeptic in this topic.

How you keep interpreting that as a personal attack against you is beyond me.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Mike B.


Of course, if that was the case, the "Guardian" would have a lot of editorials about how that shows Xian fundamentalists have taken over America...blah...blah...

Special report by Iranian woman on the Hijab (http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,11882,1105400,00.html)

There are two other reports the same day.

The Guardian is hardly ignoring the issue. Cracks me up the number of people who say things like, "You don't hear (insert name of institution you don't like here) complaining about this issue!" without checking to see what they've said about it.

[DavidJames]

"I did not use the term "anti-American" to describe those who opposed the war"

"I think the general idea is that the Left is not so much pro-Saddam, or pro-anybody-else, as they are anti-America."

"By "the Left" in the context of this topic, I mean those who exercise influence in our society and upon our elected officials"

You might be able to achieve your objective then by using names of people or organizations then rather then the blanket phrase "the left".

I've asked for exactly that previously in this thread but the request has been ignored. I wonder why and without a better explanation I will have to assume it's not in the posters best interest to use names as somehow it would detract from their position.

Edit to add: Luke - I know in other posts you've mentioned ANSWER (I think that was the org.) and that's very helpful and exactly what I think adds to the discourse rather than inflames it.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by DavidJames
"I did not use the term "anti-American" to describe those who opposed the war"

"I think the general idea is that the Left is not so much pro-Saddam, or pro-anybody-else, as they are anti-America."

"By "the Left" in the context of this topic, I mean those who exercise influence in our society and upon our elected officials"

You might be able to achieve your objective then by using names of people or organizations then rather then the blanket phrase "the left".

I've asked for exactly that previously in this thread but the request has been ignored. I wonder why and without a better explanation I will have to assume it's not in the posters best interest to use names as somehow it would detract from their position.

Hee hee. You just asked the wrong guy. I am always happy for an opportunity to mention International A.N.S.W.E.R. (http://www.internationalanswer.org/)

This is a prime example of an organization which used a lot of pro-American war protestors for their (ANSWER's) anti-American aims.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Special report by Iranian woman on the Hijab (http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,11882,1105400,00.html)




Good article.

[DavidJames]

"You just asked the wrong guy. I am always happy for an opportunity to mention International A.N.S.W.E.R. "

My edit and your post crossed - I did give you credit. :)

But it's still seems to easy (even for you) to use the "the left" and anti-american in the same sentence, without qualifications.

[DanishDynamite]

Skeptic:Zero: Again, you misrepresent the overall 'anti-war' movement, and take from it the one element that supports your beliefs. You ignore the vast spectrum of 'anti-war' protesters, some of whome almost certainly share views similar to your own.

Skeptic: I ignore it because it's a completely meaningless difference.This really sums up the infantile simplicity of the extreme right-wingers. It doesn't matter to them why you disagree with the decision to wage war, it only matters that you do. And in disagreeing with a war they like (is there one they don't?), you are automatically a supporter of the declared enemy. Its sort of like not caring about why someone thinks Nixon should not continue his presidency. It can only be because you are a Pinko Democrat.
Zero: For instance, some of us wanted to see Iraq freed, but without America having to foot the majority of the bill, and not have our troops go over there without an better plan for setting up a new government.

Skeptic: I'm sorry, Sir, but you seem to live in a fantasy land with no realtion to the real world. The choice was EITHER US involvement, OR Saddam staying in power. You couldn't have both Saddam removed and no US involvement. Nobody else but the US could have done it--as was blatantly obvious from the start. So if you choose "no US involvement", that means "keeping Saddam in power". Period. It's just a different name for the same thing. Zero didn't say "no US involvement".
If your "enlightened" anti-war view had won out, today Saddam would be firing victory shots into the air from his palace, delcaring his defeat of the "evil imperialistic Bush who cowered from the world's anger". Luckily, this didn't happen, so he is today in an American prison. THESE were the two paths to take. You did your best to make the first outcome come true, so to that extent, you were pro-Saddam. "THESE were the two paths to take". Aren't false dichotomies great! Skeptic, go read what I said to Troll on his defence of this particular false dichotomy of yours. Its in
this thread. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=32324)

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Tony



Good article.

Merci, monsieur. :)

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by DavidJames
"You just asked the wrong guy. I am always happy for an opportunity to mention International A.N.S.W.E.R. "

My edit and your post crossed - I did give you credit. :)

But it's still seems to easy (even for you) to use the "the left" and anti-american in the same sentence, without qualifications.

I agree. The difficulty lies in the fact everyone interprets certain words differently, "the left" being one of the most fractious. So it does call for qualifying statements. We have to get all lawyer-like. Unfortunately, that takes a lot of time that we don't always want to invest and hope the other readers know what we mean based on our past use and the context of the topic. Wishful thinking, I know...

[Luke T.]

Zero: For instance, some of us wanted to see Iraq freed, but without America having to foot the majority of the bill, and not have our troops go over there without an better plan for setting up a new government.

Skeptic: I'm sorry, Sir, but you seem to live in a fantasy land with no realtion to the real world. The choice was EITHER US involvement, OR Saddam staying in power. You couldn't have both Saddam removed and no US involvement. Nobody else but the US could have done it--as was blatantly obvious from the start. So if you choose "no US involvement", that means "keeping Saddam in power". Period. It's just a different name for the same thing.

DanishDynamite: Zero didn't say "no US involvement".

I don't think there was much of a menu to select from. It was either the U.S. did it, or no one. Nobody else was stepping up to the plate to do it. So it was either us, or Saddam staying in power. I think Saddam was counting on U.S. not doing it, and everyone else playing the same multiple-U.N.-Resolution game of ineffectiveness.

We invited the coalition. Not the other way around.

[Luke T.]

Zero: For instance, some of us wanted to see Iraq freed, but without America having to foot the majority of the bill, and not have our troops go over there without an better plan for setting up a new government.

Skeptic: I'm sorry, Sir, but you seem to live in a fantasy land with no realtion to the real world. The choice was EITHER US involvement, OR Saddam staying in power. You couldn't have both Saddam removed and no US involvement. Nobody else but the US could have done it--as was blatantly obvious from the start. So if you choose "no US involvement", that means "keeping Saddam in power". Period. It's just a different name for the same thing.

DanishDynamite: Zero didn't say "no US involvement".

I don't think there was much of a menu to select from. It was either the U.S. did it, or no one. Nobody else was stepping up to the plate to do it. So it was either us, or Saddam staying in power. I think Saddam was counting on U.S. not doing it, and everyone else playing the same multiple-U.N.-Resolution game of ineffectiveness.

We invited the coalition. Not the other way around.

As for Zero's "without an better plan for setting up a new government," I would like to point out again that the great Marshall Plan didn't even go into effect until three years after the war ended. And the Allies had several years prior to the end of the year to plan for the aftermath.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Skeptic


Congratulations! You just put your finger PRECISELY on why the left was wrong here, and why it was pro-Saddam for all intents and purposes.

Of course I think there's an "excluded middle" argument here: either US-led war or Saddam stays in power, not both, and not some other possiblity; therefore, if you oppose one, you necessarily support the other. But this is only a FALLACY if it is false: that is, if there is a "middle" to exclude. When I say that 2+2=4 or 2+2 is not = 4, I am "excluding the middle", too--e.g., the claim that 2+2=4 and not 4--but that is not a fallacy, because one SHOULD exclude logical contradictions.

So, please, enlighten me: how, exactly, if NOT by a US-led war, was Saddam Hussein to be toppled? A war led by the French, perhaps? More UN sanctions that Saddam would use as an excuse to starve the Iraqis? Anything? Let's put it this way: what on earth EXCEPT for a war was not tried--and failed--with Saddam? I think it's rather obvious that in this case, "remove Saddam but not with US help" is about as viable as "2+2=4 but also 2+2=not 4"; not a logical impossiblity, presumably, but certainly a practical one. "Remove Saddam AND don't involve the US!" is remiscient of the old "Saturday Night Live" faux commercial: "It's a dessert topping AND a furniture polish!".

Since it's rather obvious that in this case it WAS one or the other, there is no difference between being "against the war" and being "for Saddam's continued rule" (which is the extent to which the anti-war movement was pro-Saddam). To say "I was not FOR Saddam, I was just AGAINST the war" in this case, is a bit like saying, "I do not claim 2+2 IS different than 4, all I am saying is that it IS NOT 4". The left THINKS there is a difference--and therefore THINKS it wasn't "really" pro-Saddam--because it imagines there is a "middle" to exclude here. But that's precisely the mistake on the left's part: there isn't, so in practice, it WAS really pro-Saddam. You really don't understand(by choice or by inability) what we are trying to say, do you? You list as the only two options a)exactly what you think is the ideal situation, and b) some made-up position that you somehow think makes a) seem reasonable. You seem to believe that there were njo other options. Let me list you a couple of options, just to show how easy it is:

a) America does whatever it wants, we're stuck with the situation as it stands now

b) America doesn't participate, nothing happens.

c) The U.N. gives inspectors 60 days,then invades and beats the living crap out of the non-threat of Iraq without American help.

d) The U.S. waits the asked-for 60 days, then invades with U.N. backing, and the involvement of France and Germany.

e) Someone actually has a plan for what happens AFTER whatever army goes in defeats the Iraqi non-threat.

f) An international coalition led by teh U.S. eases Saddam out of power without wrecking the country, and creats a smooth transition

g) Bush puts on his flight suuit and plays G.I. Joes on Air Force One while Rumsfeld and Cheney divide up rebuilding profits in Iraq...oh wait, that happened too.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Zero
c) The U.N. gives inspectors 60 days,then invades and beats the living crap out of the non-threat of Iraq without American help.

d) The U.S. waits the asked-for 60 days, then invades with U.N. backing, and the involvement of France and Germany.



I don't recall this 60 day option by the U.N.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Luke T.


I don't recall this 60 day option by the U.N. May have been 90...I think they started at 90, negaotiated down to 60, and Bush rejected both plans,

[DanishDynamite]

Luke T.:I don't think there was much of a menu to select from. It was either the U.S. did it, or no one. Nobody else was stepping up to the plate to do it. So it was either us, or Saddam staying in power. I think Saddam was counting on U.S. not doing it, and everyone else playing the same multiple-U.N.-Resolution game of ineffectiveness.

We invited the coalition. Not the other way around. Luke, I won't disagree that if the US wasn't in the coalition, the effort probably wouldn't have happened or if it did, might not have been succesful. That, however, has nothing to do with my point. My point was (and is) that if Bush had just kept his gun in his pocket a little longer, the GW 2 could have been a UN mandated expedition. The majority of the force would still have been American, but it would have been an expedition with the authority of the UN behind it and the consequent lack of acrimonous split between the US and some of its allies and with the guarantee of international funding of the effort.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Zero
May have been 90...I think they started at 90, negaotiated down to 60, and Bush rejected both plans,

I have been googling the living daylights out of this claim and can find nothing to support it. Maybe you could help me out here and point me in the right direction.

The closest thing I could find about any more deadlines before the war started was one proposed by the U.S. in this news item. (http://www.jsonline.com/news/gen/mar03/126309.asp)


Diplomacy dissolved into finger-pointing Monday as the United States and its allies withdrew a new Security Council resolution that would have set a deadline for Iraq to disarm and backed it up with the threat of military force.

The resolution was introduced by the U.S., Britain and Spain, who said Iraq had failed to comply with Resolution 1441. That measure sent weapons inspectors back to Iraq in November for the first time in four years and threatened "serious consequences" unless Iraq proved it had no weapons of mass destruction.

British Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock laid the blame for the diplomatic stalemate squarely at France's door, saying the French had made it clear they would veto a follow-up no matter what the circumstances. "That country rejected our proposal even before Iraq itself," he said.

I cannot find anything that says anyone suggested a wait of yet another period, (60, 90 days or otherwise) and then attacking Iraq if they weren't in compliance, except from the U.S., not the U.N., and it was rejected. The U.N. resolutions were a joke. They had no threat of force behind them. Only the U.S. and its coalition allies did.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Luke T.:Luke, I won't disagree that if the US wasn't in the coalition, the effort probably wouldn't have happened or if it did, might not have been succesful. That, however, has nothing to do with my point. My point was (and is) that if Bush had just kept his gun in his pocket a little longer, the GW 2 could have been a UN mandated expedition. The majority of the force would still have been American, but it would have been an expedition with the authority of the UN behind it and the consequent lack of acrimonous split between the US and some of its allies and with the guarantee of international funding of the effort.

DD, I'll ask you the same thing I am asking Zero. When and where did the U.N. ever say it was willing to use force against Saddam Hussein?

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Zero
You really don't understand(by choice or by inability) what we are trying to say, do you? You list as the only two options a)exactly what you think is the ideal situation, and b) some made-up position that you somehow think makes a) seem reasonable. You seem to believe that there were njo other options. Let me list you a couple of options, just to show how easy it is:

a) America does whatever it wants, we're stuck with the situation as it stands now

b) America doesn't participate, nothing happens.

c) The U.N. gives inspectors 60 days,then invades and beats the living crap out of the non-threat of Iraq without American help.

d) The U.S. waits the asked-for 60 days, then invades with U.N. backing, and the involvement of France and Germany.

e) Someone actually has a plan for what happens AFTER whatever army goes in defeats the Iraqi non-threat.

f) An international coalition led by teh U.S. eases Saddam out of power without wrecking the country, and creats a smooth transition

g) Bush puts on his flight suuit and plays G.I. Joes on Air Force One while Rumsfeld and Cheney divide up rebuilding profits in Iraq...oh wait, that happened too.

Do you really believe the UN could beat the living crap out Iraq WITHOUT US help????

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ralph


Do you really believe the UN could beat the living crap out Iraq WITHOUT US help????

Yes. The British are a pretty formidible army.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


Yes. The British are a pretty formidible army.

He said a UN force.......not the Brits.......big difference.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ralph


He said a UN force.......not the Brits.......big difference.

I bet you didn't know that this... But the UN? They can actually ask countries to contribute forces for a peacekeeping effort! So, all they have to do is ask, "Who wants to help us keep the Iraqi army at bay while we check if they have WMD's," and Britain (not to mention Canada, Australia, and any other country that's contributed forces in the past) can put their hand up and contribute their troops!

Amazing, isn't it?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Ralph


Do you really believe the UN could beat the living crap out Iraq WITHOUT US help???? Boy Scouts with Swiss Army knives may have had a chance, if they were Eagle Scouts...:p

Seriously, Iraq was never a credible military threat, as the past year has shown. A force of 40-50,000 troops could have spanked them pretty soundly.

[shuize]

Yeah, the UN sure showed the Serbs who was boss when they turned over the entire town of Srebrenicia (sp?) to be butchered without firing a shot.

[Graham]

Originally posted by shuize
Yeah, the UN sure showed the Serbs who was boss when they turned over the entire town of Srebrenicia (sp?) to be butchered without firing a shot.

The Srebrebica story in brief (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/675945.stm) if anyone's interested.

And a more in-depth version (http://www.gendercide.org/case_srebrenica.html) (portions of this - and many of the linked pages - are not for the faint of heart).

The United Nations must shoulder a large share of responsibility for allowing the massacre to take place under the noses of its troops. In November 1999, the UN released a highly self-critical report on its performance, stating that "Through error, misjudgment and the inability to recognize the scope of evil confronting us, we failed to do our part to save the people of Srebrenica from the Serb campaign of mass murder."

It seems rather tacky to use a situation that utterly fubar'ed for petty points scoring though :( .

Graham

[epepke]

Originally posted by Luke T.


I don't think there was much of a menu to select from. It was either the U.S. did it, or no one.

That and I never heard a leftist suggest any other options. War is evil. Sanctions were evil. When pressed, they'd say "it's not our job to solve every problem."

Back during the 60's and 70's, the leftists who protested the war in Vietnam at least had some awareness that this would mean communist hegemony in Vietnam. They thought about this and came to accomodations. Some supported the communists. Some weren't happy about the idea but thought that the war was not worth it. Some were isolationists. Whatever. But they all recognized that, whatever the reasons, supporting a withdrawal was de facto support of the regime.

Whatever the positions one agrees with are irrelevant. The point is that they thought things through, at least moderately well. They accepted that there were costs to whatever action. The difference of opinion was largely due to different inputs and cost analysis.

This used to be a sine qua non of the left. Remember "not to decide is to decide"? But now, I don't see that in the left wing. Just gadflyism. It's terribly easy to say that the right wing uses false dichotomies without advocating alternatives of your own. It's terribly easy to adopt a "let George do it" attitude, which has become ironic.

[a_unique_person]

King of the Strawmen, Skeptic. One of these days, you may grow up. You may even reach the level of argument that a high school student like Manifesto achieves, but only if you try hard.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I've been looking at the history of this thing.

When the USA supported Saddam in the 1980s against Iran--seeing him as the lesser of two evils--the left was all agog with how awful he is. His victims (the Kurds, the Marsh Arabs) were the darlings of the left.



You have any proof of that. I can recall how press such as Murdoch's were all in favour of Iraq in preference to the evil Iranians. It surprised me that a nominally left wing government was seen as being preferable to any other, given the cold war attitudes of the US.



Then Saddam made a mistake and attacked Kuwait. Suddently, a US invasion was planned. Almost overnight, Saddam's victims became an anathema to the left, part of the "propaganda" against Iraq and a justification of G. Bush, Sr., "imperialist war". Down with "Saddam is a murderer", up with "no blood for oil".



You have proof of this too?



Then, due to many reasons, Saddam was kept in power (to the delight of those who saw it as proof of "the failure of American imperialism"), and UN sanctions were imposed, with US support.



And what were these reasons?



Since the sanctions were due to US support, the left began a campaign villifying the sanctions as the cause of "genocide", and demanding their unconditional lifting. Of course, the fact that Saddam had more than enough money even after the sanctions to feed and clothe his people, but deliberately starved them as a political tool, was ignored or derided as irrelevant. It's all the US fault, for insisting on sanctions.







Then GWB and Tony Blair showed a resolution to invade Iraq. Overnight, of course, the UN and its sanctions became the darling of the left; the same people who were ranting on how evil the sanctions were, started to explain how effective and wonderful they are, proof that "international pressure and world opinion" are efficient when fighting dictators like Saddam, and why there is no reason at all to actually fight a war.






Get the point? First Saddam bad, then Saddam good. First sanctions bad, then sanctions good. First his victims matter, then (before the first gulf war) they are "war-justifying propaganda", then they matter again, as long as they can be blamed on "evil US sanctions", then they are "propaganda" again (before te second gulf war). Cearly, what matters is not the facts, but the burning desire to always be on the opposite side than the USA, no matter WHAT the USA does--like a five-year-old acting the contrarian.



I have read my Orwell, and Chomsky, and noted quite well how the list of bad guys and good guys as presented in the media is constantly changing. I noticed this many years ago with Saddam, first he was presented as the good guy, then all of a sudden he is the bad guy. But when I look at his history, he was a bad guy all along.



It's sad, really. In the past, the left--whatever its faults--could AT LEAST be counted on to oppose Fascism. Nowadays, fascists like Saddam are the darlings of the left... merely because the USA finally decided to do something about them, and therefore such "imperialist war-mongering" must be opposed by all right thinking people If "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", which I don't actually think is all that accurate, the left has been adding quite a bunch of sleazy "friends" to their war against "evil American imperialism"...

I'll say it's sad. That you are such an idiot to think that what you class as "the left" has ever been "for" Saddam. I suppose you can, once again, provide some proof of that? No, I thought not.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Did I? I have no recollection of such a duel. I do remember asking you to let me know next time you land @ HEF. I fly there all the time...perhaps you took it as a threat? You neglected to mention which field you frequent...but hell man, I only wanted to buy you a beer. You should be less skittish my "girly-man" friend. Don't you know that threats of violence are against the JREF rules? If I have done that to you, you should report me.

If not, you should stop your whining and try to be a man.

-z

Well, I am not surprised that you would forget such a thing, but you did say such a thing all the same. I have found that hot-tempered people often manage to forget that which is inconvenient to remember, but here here goes all the same ...


This is when rikzilla (see the text with the bold formatting) started that talk about the challenge when I brought up how he previously stated that "all liberals are liars and cowards".

Originally posted by rikzilla (July, 2003) in the Weapons of Mass Destruction Are One Step Closer To Being Found Thread

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22027&perpage=40&highlight=gauntlet&pagenumber=3



It bears repeating I guess! ;)

This is Crossbow's attempt at demonizing me. I'm honored! He attempts to demonize me in the tradition of political correctness. Instead of showing why I'm wrong (He can't because for every 1 real liberal patriot I'll show him 2 or more traitors) he wants to take sound bites.

There...the gauntlet is thrown Crosseyes....for every Kennedy you give me I'll serve up a Jane Fonda, and raise you a Woody Harrelson!

-z

Then when Tricky tried to point out that maybe he was making a personal of issue of things, this is how he responded.

You're a good man Tricky,

Perhaps I'm being unfair. Crossbow has decided to become the liberal champion of the forum....he picked up the gauntlet. I'm not unreasonable...if he shows me good upstanding American liberals that do not gravitate naturally to our enemy's sides I will agree that I've been wrong.

Unlike Shanek and AUP I do not believe myself to be infallible. If I'm wrong, then I will admit it. I don't believe I am...but I guess we'll see. AUP has already gone the extra mile to try and defend the actions of Jane Fonda during Vietnam! Talk about defending the indefensible! He almost proves my point by himself. It's just this sort of thing that pisses me off about the militant liberals. They think they can do no wrong.

-z

Then is where rikzilla tried to define the terms of the duel he had in mind.

Grass before breakfast!

You are a martial artist eh? Well, I fence quite well myself. Bring it on my friend! Duelling is a lost art, I do wish we could bring it back.

-z

edited to add: A pilot eh? I am a CFII...multi engine and instrument rated. I teach at Davis Field in Manassas after work and on weekends. So, when was the last time you flew?? HEF (http://www.airnav.com/airport/HEF/)

Then he finally calmed down and posted this.

...

Therefore I respectfully withdraw my inflamatory remarks of yesterday and offer my apology. I'll withdraw the infamous "traitors and cowards" comment from my sig line. If, however other folks wish to remember my quote that's ok too. I pledge to all of you that I will always own up to my words and mistakes. Unlike so many others.

-zilla

And when I asked rikzilla if he was really withdrawing the duel he offered, he said.

Thanks,

I'll take the challenge back. Seeing how I would be placed into a position of defending a statement that I have already acknowledged was in poor taste. I do not believe it was completely inaccurate, but it was terribly rude. If you still wish to make a point against that statement feel free to do so. If you've taken the time to do research, then by all means post it. But otherwise the subject can die with my apology. It's up to you.

-z

Thank you for your beer offer rikzilla, but I choose to decline.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Crossbow


Well, I am not surprised that you would forget such a thing, but you did say such a thing all the same. I have found that hot-tempered people often manage to forget that which is inconvenient to remember, but here here goes all the same ...


This is when rikzilla (see the text with the bold formatting) started that talk about the challenge when I brought up how he previously stated that "all liberals are liars and cowards".

Originally posted by rikzilla (July, 2003) in the Weapons of Mass Destruction Are One Step Closer To Being Found Thread

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22027&perpage=40&highlight=gauntlet&pagenumber=3



It bears repeating I guess! ;)

This is Crossbow's attempt at demonizing me. I'm honored! He attempts to demonize me in the tradition of political correctness. Instead of showing why I'm wrong (He can't because for every 1 real liberal patriot I'll show him 2 or more traitors) he wants to take sound bites.

There...the gauntlet is thrown Crosseyes....for every Kennedy you give me I'll serve up a Jane Fonda, and raise you a Woody Harrelson!

-z

Then when Tricky tried to point out that maybe he was making a personal of issue of things, this is how he responded.

You're a good man Tricky,

Perhaps I'm being unfair. Crossbow has decided to become the liberal champion of the forum....he picked up the gauntlet. I'm not unreasonable...if he shows me good upstanding American liberals that do not gravitate naturally to our enemy's sides I will agree that I've been wrong.

Unlike Shanek and AUP I do not believe myself to be infallible. If I'm wrong, then I will admit it. I don't believe I am...but I guess we'll see. AUP has already gone the extra mile to try and defend the actions of Jane Fonda during Vietnam! Talk about defending the indefensible! He almost proves my point by himself. It's just this sort of thing that pisses me off about the militant liberals. They think they can do no wrong.

-z

Then is where rikzilla tried to define the terms of the duel he had in mind.

Grass before breakfast!

You are a martial artist eh? Well, I fence quite well myself. Bring it on my friend! Duelling is a lost art, I do wish we could bring it back.

-z

edited to add: A pilot eh? I am a CFII...multi engine and instrument rated. I teach at Davis Field in Manassas after work and on weekends. So, when was the last time you flew?? HEF (http://www.airnav.com/airport/HEF/)

Then he finally calmed down and posted this.

...

Therefore I respectfully withdraw my inflamatory remarks of yesterday and offer my apology. I'll withdraw the infamous "traitors and cowards" comment from my sig line. If, however other folks wish to remember my quote that's ok too. I pledge to all of you that I will always own up to my words and mistakes. Unlike so many others.

-zilla

And when I asked rikzilla if he was really withdrawing the duel he offered, he said.

Thanks,

I'll take the challenge back. Seeing how I would be placed into a position of defending a statement that I have already acknowledged was in poor taste. I do not believe it was completely inaccurate, but it was terribly rude. If you still wish to make a point against that statement feel free to do so. If you've taken the time to do research, then by all means post it. But otherwise the subject can die with my apology. It's up to you.

-z

Thank you for your beer offer rikzilla, but I choose to decline.

Damn man,...but you ARE thin-skinned! Have you no sense of humor? If you felt threatened please by all means report me!!

Good God! No wonder I didn't remember threatening you! "Grass before breakfast!?" HAHAHA Now if I said I was gonna hunt you down and kick your a$$ that would be a threat. No doofus...the challenge was to find more pro-America liberals than I could find anti-America liberals. That was during a phase in which I was reading a tad too much Ann Coulter...so I backed off. But honestly, if you ever do wish to rise to that challenge I still think I could easily take you. :D

BTW, I do pratice fencing for exercise,...but never have I ever seen a person injured during a bout. Nothing much there to worry about man. Did I say naked swords at dawn? Did I set a place and time? Do I even know your name? Should you be afraid that a sword weilding maniac is creeping around local airports looking for the chief engineer of the starship Enterprise? :rolleyes:

You sir are a bit of a nut,...Besides,..you were the one who brought up martial arts...and correct me if I'm wrong, but martial arts are far more useful in a street fight than superior fencing skills wouldn't you say?

Oh, and of course I do regret the illegality of the honorable duel. Just think about it,...if every guy with an axe to grind could challenge his rival to a proper duel instead of pulling a "drive-by" shooting, or gunning down every poor schmuck in his office, we'd have a lot less innocent bystanders being peppered with stray rounds. And a much more courteous populace to boot. ;)

-z

BTW, like I said...if I have ever threatened you harm,...which quite honestly I see no evidence of here....then report me to Hal. If not then either take me up on the beer offer or go cower somewhere...either way I'd appreciate it if you'd either put up or shut up.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


I bet you didn't know that this... But the UN? They can actually ask countries to contribute forces for a peacekeeping effort! So, all they have to do is ask, "Who wants to help us keep the Iraqi army at bay while we check if they have WMD's," and Britain (not to mention Canada, Australia, and any other country that's contributed forces in the past) can put their hand up and contribute their troops!

Amazing, isn't it?

What's amazing is that someone could have such incredible insight into military matters before they're even old enough to have cut the umbilical cord from mum & dad.

Are you really backing the position that " a non-US--UN military force could kick the living crap out of the Iraquis"?????

A year ago--all we heard from the left was "bloodbath"...."this will be different--it's city fighting"......"another Stalingrad"...."thousands of US troops in body bags"....and on & on.

Now you're saying some motley UN force could have rolled right over them......

As far as the Brits go---they tend to act unilaterally with the US on these things. I seriously doubt they'd get involved in something like this without US support.

The Brits alone probably could probably handle the Iraquis but as part of a UN coalition without US support...........highly unlikely.

More than likely the French will piss and moan and wind up being in charge of the whole thing.....

Now there's a recipe for victory if ever I saw one.........

At least this way the Arab world will get what it's been so desperate for----a military victory over somebody.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ralph


What's amazing is that someone could have such incredible insight into military matters before they're even old enough to have cut the umbilical cord from mum & dad.

Are you really backing the position that " a non-US--UN military force could kick the living crap out of the Iraquis"?????

A year ago--all we heard from the left was "bloodbath"...."this will be different--it's city fighting"......"another Stalingrad"...."thousands of US troops in body bags"....and on & on.

Now you're saying some motley UN force could have rolled right over them......


Strawman. Some on the left said that, I never did.


As far as the Brits go---they tend to act unilaterally with the US on these things. I seriously doubt they'd get involved in something like this without US support.

According to you, anyway.


The Brits alone probably could probably handle the Iraquis but as part of a UN coalition without US support...........highly unlikely.

According to you, anyway.


More than likely the French will piss and moan and wind up being in charge of the whole thing.....

Now there's a recipe for victory if ever I saw one.........

At least this way the Arab world will get what it's been so desperate for----a military victory over somebody.

According to you, anyway.

[DavidJames]

"What's amazing is that someone could have such incredible insight into military matters before they're even old enough to have cut the umbilical cord from mum & dad."

This is getting really old and does nothing to support your claims and in fact is petty and says more about you then anything else.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by DavidJames
"What's amazing is that someone could have such incredible insight into military matters before they're even old enough to have cut the umbilical cord from mum & dad."

This is getting really old and does nothing to support your claims and in fact is petty and says more about you then anything else.

I don't mind. Ralph needs all the help he can get, don'tcha Ralphie? :D

[Zero]

Originally posted by epepke


That and I never heard a leftist suggest any other options.

Then you weren't listening. It is just that simple.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Ralph



A year ago--all we heard from the left was "bloodbath"...."this will be different--it's city fighting"......"another Stalingrad"...."thousands of US troops in body bags"....and on & on.

DId you really hear this from the 'left'? Or did you read some pundit saying that this is what was coming out of the 'left'?

[Zero]

YOu can tell, BTW, when someone doesn't know what they are talking about when they use phrases like 'darling of the left', which indicated a lack of thinking, and a proficiency for quoting right-wing talking points.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by DavidJames
"What's amazing is that someone could have such incredible insight into military matters before they're even old enough to have cut the umbilical cord from mum & dad."

This is getting really old and does nothing to support your claims and in fact is petty and says more about you then anything else.

My claim was that a non US supported, UN force would not be able to "kick the living crap" out of the Iraqui military.

My support for this belief comes from past performances of UN military forces along with a little bit of common sense.

What else would you like to see to support this claim. Some statistics maybe?/

If you feel that a UN force could've handled the Iraqui military-----how would you support these claims?...

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


I don't mind. Ralph needs all the help he can get, don'tcha Ralphie? :D

Relax Manifesto----just about everyone here was teenager
at one point in their life...........There's no shame in that.

:D

[Zero]

Originally posted by Ralph


My claim was that a non US supported, UN force would not be able to "kick the living crap" out of the Iraqui military.

My support for this belief comes from past performances of UN military forces along with a little bit of common sense.

What else would you like to see to support this claim. Some statistics maybe?/

If you feel that a UN force could've handled the Iraqui military-----how would you support these claims?... Past performance of U.N. troops is more than the one instance that you brought up...and your 'common sense' is debatable.

The Iraqi military didn't put up much of a fight, wasn't capable of putting up much of a fight, and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. Forget about WMDs, their small arms aren't too impressive either.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Damn man,...but you ARE thin-skinned! Have you no sense of humor? If you felt threatened please by all means report me!!

Good God! No wonder I didn't remember threatening you! "Grass before breakfast!?" HAHAHA Now if I said I was gonna hunt you down and kick your a$$ that would be a threat. No doofus...the challenge was to find more pro-America liberals than I could find anti-America liberals. That was during a phase in which I was reading a tad too much Ann Coulter...so I backed off. But honestly, if you ever do wish to rise to that challenge I still think I could easily take you. :D

BTW, I do pratice fencing for exercise,...but never have I ever seen a person injured during a bout. Nothing much there to worry about man. Did I say naked swords at dawn? Did I set a place and time? Do I even know your name? Should you be afraid that a sword weilding maniac is creeping around local airports looking for the chief engineer of the starship Enterprise? :rolleyes:

You sir are a bit of a nut,...Besides,..you were the one who brought up martial arts...and correct me if I'm wrong, but martial arts are far more useful in a street fight than superior fencing skills wouldn't you say?

Oh, and of course I do regret the illegality of the honorable duel. Just think about it,...if every guy with an axe to grind could challenge his rival to a proper duel instead of pulling a "drive-by" shooting, or gunning down every poor schmuck in his office, we'd have a lot less innocent bystanders being peppered with stray rounds. And a much more courteous populace to boot. ;)

-z

BTW, like I said...if I have ever threatened you harm,...which quite honestly I see no evidence of here....then report me to Hal. If not then either take me up on the beer offer or go cower somewhere...either way I'd appreciate it if you'd either put up or shut up.

Thanks for the response, it says a great deal about you as a person.

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Without looking it up, I would guess that Dean is pro gun-control, pro-abortion and pro-more-taxes. I would guess that most, if not all, of the current Democratic presidential candidates are, too.

Well, start looking things up, Luke. The NRA endorsed Dean 8 times.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Luke T.


I did not use the term "anti-American" to describe those who opposed the war. I have taken great pains time and time again to ensure everyone understands that I do not believe everyone who opposed the war is "anti-American." This is at least the second time just in this topic I have taken pains to explain just to you that I don't think you are "anti-American" for opposing the war.

When I refer to "the Left," I explained that I am not trying to lump everyone together under that category. There are people who are to the left of me on some issues while to the right of me on others. For me to consider them as "the Left" would not be accurate, and I don't. You are one of those.

If you go back and re-read my posts you will see that. By "the Left" in the context of this topic, I mean those who exercise influence in our society and upon our elected officials. Some, and by no means all, of "the Left" don't give a hoot about Iraq or the war unless they can use it as a vehicle to trash the U.S. It is plain by the hypocrisy they demonstrate in the points made by Skeptic in this topic.

How you keep interpreting that as a personal attack against you is beyond me.

Thanks for clearing that up Luke! I appreciate the clarification.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Zero


Then you weren't listening. It is just that simple.

Another empty statement. Show me some references.

I listened very closely since 9/11. I saw exactly one alternative given by a leftist, which was cribbed from some Libertarian literature and was basically isolationist.

Show me some references.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Zero
Past performance of U.N. troops is more than the one instance that you brought up...and your 'common sense' is debatable.

The Iraqi military didn't put up much of a fight, wasn't capable of putting up much of a fight, and there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. Forget about WMDs, their small arms aren't too impressive either.

Can you give me an example where UN troops were effective----without US support??

I think the Iraqui military didn't put up much of a fight because of the overwhelming superiority of US forces. I really don't think I need to give examples of that.

I think had the UN told Saddam.. "comply or in 60 days were coming in....without US support.....I think the results would have been very different."

[Zero]

Originally posted by Ralph


Can you give me an example where UN troops were effective----without US support??

I think the Iraqui military didn't put up much of a fight because of the overwhelming superiority of US forces. I really don't think I need to give examples of that.

I think had the UN told Saddam.. "comply or in 60 days were coming in....without US support.....I think the results would have been very different." So, your view is that no other army, or combination of armies, was going to be able to defeat the army of a third-world nation which was decimated by Desert Storm, over a decade of sanctions, and continues bombing? LOL

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Zero
So, your view is that no other army, or combination of armies, was going to be able to defeat the army of a third-world nation which was decimated by Desert Storm, over a decade of sanctions, and continues bombing? LOL

Yes--they were decimated in Desert Storm....mainly by US forces.

I'll ask again.......can you give me some examples of military competency by UN troops...WITHOUT the presence of US troops.

Yes--its my view that UN forces without US aid would've had a far more difficult time with the Iraqui military............

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by Ralph


Yes--they were decimated in Desert Storm....mainly by US forces.

I'll ask again.......can you give me some examples of military competency by UN troops...WITHOUT the presence of US troops.

Yes--its my view that UN forces without US aid would've had a far more difficult time with the Iraqui military............

This is the hypothetical to end all hypotheticals- no force on earth was going to keep the US out of Iraq, not with all those resources up for grabs. However, it was quite possible for the UN to ensure Saddam was disarmed- GWB's intial objective, don't forget- without US support.

The British army is a well trained, well equipped one. It also has had a large amount of experience dealing with guerillas, insurgents, DIY bombs, etc, after the Troubles in Northern Ireland. Supported by other UN forces, there would be no need for the US to get involved.

It probably wouldn't have resulted in the deposing of Saddam, or maybe it would, no-one can say. However, it is not the US's job to decide who gets to run which country. Many people are now very suspicious and frightened of the US wondering how long it will be before they commit full-blown atrocities in the name of freedom and democracy. The greatest atrocities have always been commited in the name of a noble cause.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


This is the hypothetical to end all hypotheticals- no force on earth was going to keep the US out of Iraq, not with all those resources up for grabs. However, it was quite possible for the UN to ensure Saddam was disarmed- GWB's intial objective, don't forget- without US support.

The British army is a well trained, well equipped one. It also has had a large amount of experience dealing with guerillas, insurgents, DIY bombs, etc, after the Troubles in Northern Ireland. Supported by other UN forces, there would be no need for the US to get involved.

It probably wouldn't have resulted in the deposing of Saddam, or maybe it would, no-one can say. However, it is not the US's job to decide who gets to run which country. Many people are now very suspicious and frightened of the US wondering how long it will be before they commit full-blown atrocities in the name of freedom and democracy. The greatest atrocities have always been commited in the name of a noble cause.

Man-for-man--I'd agree that the Brits are as competant as the US
but that's not what Zero was suggesting. He was talking about a UN force. That's not the same thing as the US alone or GB alone.

The US alone----GB alone----Israel alone.......the military forces of all these countrys have proven their competancy.

I'm still waiting to see some good examples of a UN force (without the US) that can make the same claim...............

I think the body count would have been a lot higher had that option been taken.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by LFTKBS


Well, start looking things up, Luke. The NRA endorsed Dean 8 times.

:D

You are correct. (http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Howard_Dean_Gun_Control.htm)

But he also said, "I understand that's not the traditional Democratic position."

[Luke T.]

Ralph: year ago--all we heard from the left was "bloodbath"...."this will be different--it's city fighting"......"another Stalingrad"...."thousands of US troops in body bags"....and on & on.

Zero:DId you really hear this from the 'left'? Or did you read some pundit saying that this is what was coming out of the 'left'?

Why would the Left care how many soldiers were killed? They think they are all baby-killers, right?

;)

Geez, I can't believe I just gave some ammunition to the opposition...

[shuize]

Originally posted by Graham


It seems rather tacky to use a situation that utterly fubar'ed for petty points scoring though :( .

Graham

You're right. I'm sure nobody would have said anything if it were U.S. troops that turned all those civilians over for massacre.

Now, back to the discussion of how formidable a military force the U.N. can be without the U.S. support....

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto


I bet you didn't know that this... But the UN? They can actually ask countries to contribute forces for a peacekeeping effort! So, all they have to do is ask, "Who wants to help us keep the Iraqi army at bay while we check if they have WMD's," and Britain (not to mention Canada, Australia, and any other country that's contributed forces in the past) can put their hand up and contribute their troops!

Amazing, isn't it?


I'm not following....

who are these countries? are they even member nations of the U.N? Anyone have a map? WHat do their flags look like? Do they come from planet-x?

talk some sense man! member nations contributing to a peacekeeping effort! fiction! fiction I say!

[Ralph]

Originally posted by shuize


You're right. I'm sure nobody would have said anything if it were U.S. troops that turned all those civilians over for massacre.

Now, back to the discussion of how formidable a military force the U.N. can be without the U.S. support....

Chirp........................chirp................ .....chirp.............


Maybe it's time to switch to a more believable topic.

Homeopathic cures for brain cancer or Dowsing for Diamonds
for example.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Ralph


Chirp........................chirp................ .....chirp.............


Maybe it's time to switch to a more believable topic.

Homeopathic cures for brain cancer or Dowsing for Diamonds
for example.

Maybe if you spent less time listening to insects and more time researching . . .

MONTHLY SUMMARY OF MILITARY AND CIVILIAN POLICE (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/contributors/November2003Summary.pdf)

The formatting's not great (you might be better to look at the original PDF) but I've bolded the US figures to help you out.


No. Country Civpol Milob Troops Total
1 Albania 3 3
2 Algeria 19 19
3 Argentina 145 5 403 553
4 Australia 34 19 2 55
5 Austria 38 12 826 876
6 Bangladesh 92 72 4,110 4,274
7 Belgium 1 9 5 15
8 Benin 12 22 255 289
9 Bolivia 15 203 218
10 Bosnia and Herzegovina 6 14 20
11 Brazil 8 15 59 82
12 Bulgaria 78 6 2 86
13 Burkina Faso 2 12 14
14 Cameroon 24 2 1 27
15 Canada 27 14 198 239
16 Chile 5 10 6 21
17 China 33 48 225 306
18 Cote d Ivoire 14 14
19 Croatia 23 5 28
20 Czech Republic 16 18 1 35
21 Denmark 28 36 2 66
22 Ecuador 2 1 3
23 Egypt 59 56 4 119
24 El Salvador 5 5
25 Estonia 2 2
26 Ethiopia 6 7 13
27 Fiji 31 204 235
28 Finland 20 27 196 243
29 France 32 78 210 320
30 Gambia 2 24 153 179
31 Germany 333 12 16 361
32 Ghana 76 48 2,173 2,297
33 Greece 20 9 29
34 Guinea 5 17 22
35 Guinea-Bissau 650 650
36 Honduras 12 12
37 Hungary 7 16 120 143
38 India 357 45 2,543 2,945
39 Indonesia 26 179 205
40 Ireland 20 26 141 187
41 Italy 39 22 99 160
42 Japan 442 442
43 Jordan 22 59 1,136 1,217
44 Kenya 49 65 1,698 1,812
45 Kyrgyzstan 4 2 6
46 Lithuania 8 8
47 Malawi 20 22 2 44
48 Malaysia 182 47 22 251
49 Mali 8 33 251 292
50 Mauritius 7 7
51 Moldova 2 1 3
52 Mongolia 5 5
53 Morocco 1 657 658
54 Mozambique 4 4
55 Namibia 2 5 4 11
56 Nepal 61 40 2,077 2,178
57 Netherlands 415 12 270 697
58 New Zealand 15 6 21
59 Niger 10 23 1 34
60 Nigeria 65 54 3,223 3,342
61 Norway 26 20 46
62 Pakistan 187 76 5,080 5,343
63 Paraguay 30 1 31
64 Peru 8 2 10
65 Phillipines 92 10 200 302
66 Poland 125 19 594 738
67 Portugal 47 1 660 708
68 Republic of Korea 18 27 45
69 Romania 174 39 1 214
70 Russia 121 85 116 322
71 Samoa 7 7
72 Senegal 30 16 742 788
73 Serbia and Montenegro 2 6 8
74 Singapore 7 7
75 Slovakia 4 509 513
76 Slovenia 14 2 16
77 South Africa 7 1,410 1,417
78 Spain 19 7 4 30
79 Sri Lanka 10 4 14
80 Sweden 54 30 95 179
81 Switzerland 9 19 2 30
82 Thailand 8 11 509 528
83 Togo 1 150 151
84 Tunisia 4 32 473 509
85 Turkey 174 7 181
86 Ukraine 195 33 834 1,062
87 United Kingdom 95 25 415 535
88 United Republic of Tanzania 1 9 3 13
89 United States of America 495 19 2 516
90 Uruguay 60 1,820 1,880
91 Zambia 44 37 831 912
92 Zimbabwe 20 54 74



So it appears that the US provides a whopping 516 personnel out of 43,531 currently deployed, making them the 23rd largest contributor to UN peacekeeping missions around the world.

Yes, it seems quite clear the UN peacekeeping missions would be utterly screwed without the US contribution. :rolleyes:

Now how about that homepathic cure for brain cancer, Ralph?

Graham

[epepke]

Originally posted by shuize


You're right. I'm sure nobody would have said anything if it were U.S. troops that turned all those civilians over for massacre.

Now, back to the discussion of how formidable a military force the U.N. can be without the U.S. support....

:dl:

Yeah.

[Graham]

Originally posted by epepke


:dl:

Yeah.


:dl: indeed . . . :rolleyes:

[LFTKBS]

Originally posted by Luke T.


:D

You are correct. (http://www.issues2000.org/2004/Howard_Dean_Gun_Control.htm)

But he also said, "I understand that's not the traditional Democratic position."

Luke, in admitting to your error, you have made my day and restored my faith in humanity. It's so very very nice to see that. Thanks; you are a good person.

Re: not the traditional Democratic position: yeah, that bugs me a lot.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Graham


Maybe if you spent less time listening to insects and more time researching . . .

MONTHLY SUMMARY OF MILITARY AND CIVILIAN POLICE (http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/contributors/November2003Summary.pdf)

The formatting's not great (you might be better to look at the original PDF) but I've bolded the US figures to help you out.



So it appears that the US provides a whopping 516 personnel out of 43,531 currently deployed, making them the 23rd largest contributor to UN peacekeeping missions around the world.

Yes, it seems quite clear the UN peacekeeping missions would be utterly screwed without the US contribution. :rolleyes:

Now how about that homepathic cure for brain cancer, Ralph?

Graham

Wow...........Cameroon..........Guinea-Bisseau..............Togo!!!!!!!

Don't you think that's overkill. Do we really need those crack Cameroonians to handle the fumbling Iraquis???

Once again we are able to solve a complex problem by simply cherry-picking statistics off the internet & counting up the numbers. I can't believe there's so much strife in the world
when it's so easy to fix things.

--Do you really believe there's nothing more to an effective military force than troop numbers? Just throw together a bunch of men from 50 different countrys and send them out. Side A has 50K troops......side B has 75K troops........I guess side B wins.

A lot of countrys refused to send troops to Iraq. Was it because they didn't want to support evil imperialist US aggresion or was it because there just wasn't anything in it for them worth getting their asses shot off. They didn't go in with the US----I tend to doubt they'd go in without the US.

Who's going to command this mob. They'll spend weeks arguing over that.

What happens to all those troops.....if the other side has air superiority??

What happens if you have a 2 to 1 advantage in tanks....but the opposition can turn your tanks into flaming wrecks before you get into range??

Somebody mentioned the Gulf war----if you just look at stats----# troops,tanks, planes.......it was pretty even. Look what happened though.......

Maybe you could do a little more research and address my initial question. Show me where a UN military force.....unsupported by the US.....distinguished itself in battle.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Ralph


Wow...........Cameroon..........Guinea-Bisseau..............Togo!!!!!!!

Don't you think that's overkill. Do we really need those crack Cameroonians to handle the fumbling Iraquis???

Once again we are able to solve a complex problem by simply cherry-picking statistics off the internet & counting up the numbers. I can't believe there's so much strife in the world
when it's so easy to fix things.

--Do you really believe there's nothing more to an effective military force than troop numbers? Just throw together a bunch of men from 50 different countrys and send them out. Side A has 50K troops......side B has 75K troops........I guess side B wins.

A lot of countrys refused to send troops to Iraq. Was it because they didn't want to support evil imperialist US aggresion or was it because there just wasn't anything in it for them worth getting their asses shot off. They didn't go in with the US----I tend to doubt they'd go in without the US.

Who's going to command this mob. They'll spend weeks arguing over that.

What happens to all those troops.....if the other side has air superiority??

What happens if you have a 2 to 1 advantage in tanks....but the opposition can turn your tanks into flaming wrecks before you get into range??

Somebody mentioned the Gulf war----if you just look at stats----# troops,tanks, planes.......it was pretty even. Look what happened though.......

Maybe you could do a little more research and address my initial question. Show me where a UN military force.....unsupported by the US.....distinguished itself in battle.

Wow, way to diss the troops of every other nation in the world, dude.

The function of a peacekeeping force isn't to "distinguish itself in battle", fool, it's to keep the peace.

If it's a measure of success you're looking for, there have been 56 UN peacekeeping operations, quite a number of which are counted as successes.

If you're interested, I suggest you look into the matter. I have neither the time nor the patience to spoon feed information to you.

Graham

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Graham


Wow, way to diss the troops of every other nation in the world, dude.

The function of a peacekeeping force isn't to "distinguish itself in battle", fool, it's to keep the peace.

If it's a measure of success you're looking for, there have been 56 UN peacekeeping operations, quite a number of which are counted as successes.

If you're interested, I suggest you look into the matter. I have neither the time nor the patience to spoon feed information to you.

Graham

Why is it so hard to get a straight answer to a simple question?

Give me a SPECIFIC EXAMPLE of a UN peacekeeping force that was effective in "keeping the peace" WITHOUT US support.

If there's 56 of them out there--it shouldn't be hard at all to find a few that would back your point.


I think you "don't have the time of patience to spoon feed me" something that doesn't exist................

[Graham]

Originally posted by Ralph


Why is it so hard to get a straight answer to a simple question?

Give me a SPECIFIC EXAMPLE of a UN peacekeeping force that was effective in "keeping the peace" WITHOUT US support.

If there's 56 of them out there--it shouldn't be hard at all to find a few that would back your point.


I think you "don't have the time of patience to spoon feed me" something that doesn't exist................

U.N. Peacekeeping Operations: Missions Accomplished

* El Salvador: Ending Civil War & Holding Free and Fair Elections 1991 - April 1995
Accomplishments: Successfully implemented peace accord, ending 12 years of bloody civil war. Disarmed combatants and created conditions for free and fair elections. Monitored human rights abuses while dismantling existing security forces and beginning creation of a civilian police force. Provided buffer, police and humanitarian observer force to implement peace accord and monitor elections. Helped maintain public order pending the creation of a national civilian police.
* Iraq and Kuwait: Deterring Violence 1991 - present
Accomplishments: Monitored withdrawal of armed forces. Monitored Kyawr 'Abd-Allah waterway and the borders at patrol bases in the demilitarized zone. Provided technical assistance to the United Nations Iraq-Kuwait Boundary Demarcation Commission and assisted relocation of Iraqi citizens from Kuwait to Iraq.
* Cambodia: Assisting the Rebirth of a Nation 1992 - 1993
Accomplishments: Conducted peaceful, free and fair elections. Helped establish new constitution and government. Investigated ceasefire violations and illegal return of forces. Destroyed weapons caches and demined major roads. Monitored human rights violations while providing human rights training for military police and judicial personnel. Achieved limited disarmament. Provided humanitarian relief, and helped repatriate 370,000 Cambodian refugees.
* Mozambique: Shifting from bullets to ballots 1992 - January 1995
Accomplishments: Organized free and fair elections. Monitored withdrawal of Zimbabwean and Malawian troops and conducted investigations of ceasefire violations. Demobilized over 80,000 troops and secured transportation corridors. Facilitated the return of 1.5 million refugees. Delivered humanitarian aid and provided technical assistance. Monitored and verified ceasefire, demobilized forces, and destroyed weapons. Provided security to transportation corridors. Coordinated and monitored humanitarian assistance, provided technical assistance, and monitored elections.
* Namibia: Creating a Free Country 1989 - 1990
Accomplishments: Achieved ceasefire and peaceful withdrawal of South African troops. Held free and fair elections, demobilized South African forces, and won release of prisoners. Helped repeal repressive legislation and create a new and independent government in Namibia.
* Afghanistan & Pakistan: Monitoring Troop Withdrawals 1988 - 1990
Accomplishments: U.N. Secretary General's good offices led to negotiation of the Geneva Accords. Soviet withdrawal successfully completed with U.N. monitoring. Outposts established to assure withdrawal. Violations of Geneva Accords investigated to extent possible, some refugees returned.
* Golan Heights: Maintaining the Peace 1974 - present
Accomplishments: Patrolled bases along ceasefire line. Established check-points and observation posts along the boundary of separation. Disengaged troops and established 24-hour observation patrols. Carried out inspections of arms and force levels. Arranged for transfer of prisoners and war dead and offered humanitarian assistance.
* Suez Canal, Sinai: Silencing Weapons and Keeping the Peace 1973 - 1979
Accomplishments: Achieved ceasefire and facilitated separation and withdrawal of troops. Monitored borders and carried out inspections through checkpoints along buffer zone. Provided communication, delivered humanitarian aid, and helped exchange prisoners. Maintained ceasefire during operation.
* West New Guinea: Assuring Peaceful Transfer of Power 1962 - 1963
Accomplishments: Successfully implemented all provisions for the peaceful transfer of power in West New Guinea. Assured peaceful negotiations between the Netherlands and Indonesia throughout transition process. Maintained order and improved economic, health and education services in West New Guinea.
* India & Pakistan: Monitoring breaches to the peace 1965 - 1966; 1949 - present
Accomplishments: Monitored ceasefire. Eased tensions and prevented military escalation along ceasefire line in Kashmir. In 1965-1966, monitored breaches in the ceasefire that helped facilitate the Tashkent Agreements which led to complete withdrawal of Indian and Pakistani troops in 1966.


Source (http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/un/unsucess.html)

Although I seem to have become the self-nominated forum UN-defender over the past couple of days, I'm actually not so I apologise for using someone elses work yet again (and risking "herry-picking statistics off the internet & counting up the numbers").

Referring back to the UN PEacekeeping website:

El Salvador:

Contributors of Military and Civilian Police Personnel
Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, France, Guyana, India, Ireland, Italy, Mexico, Norway, Spain, Sweden and Venezuela

Iraq and Kuwait is hardly a good example, I suppose.

Cambodia

Contributors of Military and Civilian Police Personnel
Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Egypt, Fiji, France, Germany, Ghana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Malaysia, Morocco, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Russian Federation, Senegal, Sweden, Thailand, Tunisia, United Kingdom, United States and Uruguay

Mozambique

CONTRIBUTORS OF MILITARY PERSONNEL
Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Canada, Cape Verde, China, Czech Republic, Egypt, Finland, Ghana, Guinea Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Malaysia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Portugal, Russian Federation, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Togo, United States, Uruguay and Zambia

Nambia

CONTRIBUTORS OF MILITARY PERSONNEL
Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Canada, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, Federal Republic of Germany, Fiji, Finland, France, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Singapore, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Soviet Union, United Kingdom and Yugoslavia

So we're two for two - do I need to go on?

Graham

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Graham





Source (http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/un/unsucess.html)

Although I seem to have become the self-nominated forum UN-defender over the past couple of days, I'm actually not so I apologise for using someone elses work yet again (and risking "herry-picking statistics off the internet & counting up the numbers").

Referring back to the UN PEacekeeping website:

El Salvador:

Contributors of Military and Civilian Police Personnel
Argentina, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, France, Guyana, India, Ireland, Italy, Mexico, Norway, Spain, Sweden and Venezuela

Iraq and Kuwait is hardly a good example, I suppose.

Cambodia

Contributors of Military and Civilian Police Personnel
Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Egypt, Fiji, France, Germany, Ghana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Malaysia, Morocco, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Russian Federation, Senegal, Sweden, Thailand, Tunisia, United Kingdom, United States and Uruguay

Mozambique

CONTRIBUTORS OF MILITARY PERSONNEL
Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Canada, Cape Verde, China, Czech Republic, Egypt, Finland, Ghana, Guinea Bissau, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Malaysia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Portugal, Russian Federation, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Togo, United States, Uruguay and Zambia

Nambia

CONTRIBUTORS OF MILITARY PERSONNEL
Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Canada, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Egypt, Federal Republic of Germany, Fiji, Finland, France, German Democratic Republic, Ghana, Greece, Guyana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Singapore, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Soviet Union, United Kingdom and Yugoslavia

So we're two for two - do I need to go on?

Graham


Yes....this proves about as much as your troop list. I see the word "monitored" a lot. I agree--UN troops are good at monitoring. There's also a lot of "assisting" and "conducting".


Saddam had tanks, an air force, and troops well dug into an urban environment. The suggestion was made that UN troops could have easily defeated Saddams forces.

Where is the track record for COMBAT.......Taking a city defended by tanks & troops is not "monitoring", "peacekeeping","assisting"
or "conducting"...........................

Where has the UN done this WITHOUT US help.....?

[Graham]

Originally posted by Ralph



Yes....this proves about as much as your troop list. I see the word "monitored" a lot. I agree--UN troops are good at monitoring. There's also a lot of "assisting" and "conducting".


Saddam had tanks, an air force, and troops well dug into an urban environment. The suggestion was made that UN troops could have easily defeated Saddams forces.

Where is the track record for COMBAT.......Taking a city defended by tanks & troops is not "monitoring", "peacekeeping","assisting"
or "conducting"...........................

Where has the UN done this WITHOUT US help.....?

You're not on crack, by any chance, are you?

Long ago in this thread, Zero suggested a series of alternate scenarios to the US led invasion of Iraq.

For whatever reasong, you ignored the six other options he listed and focused on "The U.N. gives inspectors 60 days,then invades and beats the living crap out of the non-threat of Iraq without American help"

To which you responded "Do you really believe the UN could beat the living crap out Iraq WITHOUT US help????"

Someone then mentioned the British, to which you responded "He said a UN force.......not the Brits.......big difference"

It was then pointed out to you that the British are a part of the UN (That's what the whole "I bet you didn't know that this... But the UN? They can actually ask countries to contribute forces for a peacekeeping effort!" bit was about, in case you still haven't realised that)

You then lauched into another rabid tirade against the UN, the French and every other nation except god's own, peppered with a few juvenille crack s about Mr Manifesto's age, finally leading up to the question:

"Can you give me an example where UN troops were effective----without US support??"

Your little friend shuize followed this (along with another "Oh, Americans are so hard done by and misunderstood" whining session) by saying: "Now, back to the discussion of how formidable a military force the U.N. can be without the U.S. support...."

I pointed out that the US are actually a very small part of the UN peacekeeping effort and, on request, followed that with a number of examples of successful UN peacekeeping missions.

To which you posted the above response, moving the goalposts and, in the processs missing the point entirely, yet again.

Don't you ever get tired of that?

Graham

[Zero]

Originally posted by Graham


You're not on crack, by any chance, are you?

Long ago in this thread, Zero suggested a series of alternate scenarios to the US led invasion of Iraq.

For whatever reasong, you ignored the six other options he listed and focused on "The U.N. gives inspectors 60 days,then invades and beats the living crap out of the non-threat of Iraq without American help"

To which you responded "Do you really believe the UN could beat the living crap out Iraq WITHOUT US help????"

Someone then mentioned the British, to which you responded "He said a UN force.......not the Brits.......big difference"

It was then pointed out to you that the British are a part of the UN (That's what the whole "I bet you didn't know that this... But the UN? They can actually ask countries to contribute forces for a peacekeeping effort!" bit was about, in case you still haven't realised that)

You then lauched into another rabid tirade against the UN, the French and every other nation except god's own, peppered with a few juvenille crack s about Mr Manifesto's age, finally leading up to the question:

"Can you give me an example where UN troops were effective----without US support??"

Your little friend shuize followed this (along with another "Oh, Americans are so hard done by and misunderstood" whining session) by saying: "Now, back to the discussion of how formidable a military force the U.N. can be without the U.S. support...."

I pointed out that the US are actually a very small part of the UN peacekeeping effort and, on request, followed that with a number of examples of successful UN peacekeeping missions.

To which you posted the above response, moving the goalposts and, in the processs missing the point entirely, yet again.

Don't you ever get tired of that?

Graham And, hey, why not go to my option about the U.S. being part of a U.N. force...why is it that some people choose domination over cooperation? Their options are either 'We are going to be in charge 100%' or 'We're not going to participate'. Why should the U.S. be in complete control of a U.N. peacekeeping force, or refuse to join in? Some people will give excuses, I'm sure, but what it boils down to for me is this: If the Bush administration wanted to invade Iraq for security and humanitarian reasons, did it matter who was making the decisions? The desire for complete U.S. control of the invasion points to less noble concerns and goals.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ralph



Yes....this proves about as much as your troop list. I see the word "monitored" a lot. I agree--UN troops are good at monitoring. There's also a lot of "assisting" and "conducting".


Saddam had tanks, an air force, and troops well dug into an urban environment. The suggestion was made that UN troops could have easily defeated Saddams forces.

Where is the track record for COMBAT.......Taking a city defended by tanks & troops is not "monitoring", "peacekeeping","assisting"
or "conducting"...........................

Where has the UN done this WITHOUT US help.....?

The UN, as such, does not have any troops, only rebadged troops from it's constituent countries. As such, it only has the committment of it's members.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Graham


You're not on crack, by any chance, are you?

Long ago in this thread, Zero suggested a series of alternate scenarios to the US led invasion of Iraq.

For whatever reasong, you ignored the six other options he listed and focused on "The U.N. gives inspectors 60 days,then invades and beats the living crap out of the non-threat of Iraq without American help"

To which you responded "Do you really believe the UN could beat the living crap out Iraq WITHOUT US help????"

Someone then mentioned the British, to which you responded "He said a UN force.......not the Brits.......big difference"

It was then pointed out to you that the British are a part of the UN (That's what the whole "I bet you didn't know that this... But the UN? They can actually ask countries to contribute forces for a peacekeeping effort!" bit was about, in case you still haven't realised that)

You then lauched into another rabid tirade against the UN, the French and every other nation except god's own, peppered with a few juvenille crack s about Mr Manifesto's age, finally leading up to the question:

"Can you give me an example where UN troops were effective----without US support??"

Your little friend shuize followed this (along with another "Oh, Americans are so hard done by and misunderstood" whining session) by saying: "Now, back to the discussion of how formidable a military force the U.N. can be without the U.S. support...."

I pointed out that the US are actually a very small part of the UN peacekeeping effort and, on request, followed that with a number of examples of successful UN peacekeeping missions.

To which you posted the above response, moving the goalposts and, in the processs missing the point entirely, yet again.

Don't you ever get tired of that?

Graham

If you'll read your own post Graham....I think you'll see I'm not the one who's launching into rabid tirades.

I'll give Zero credit for at least suggesting solutions rather than the usual criticism but I strongly disagree with what he said about sending in UN forces without the US.

It's hard enough getting a straight answer to one issue....never mind all six so I thought I'd keep things limited to that.

All someone had to do was give some examples of where UN forces succesfully engaged in combat with a credible enemy.

"1985----UN forces consisting of 3 infantry and one armored
division from the countrys of France,Togo,Guinea-Bisseau, and Cameroon established a beachhead in Outer Bratislavia---reached the capitol city of Wczazislania in 3 days---and kicked the living crap out of dug in Bratislavian forces."


Thats all I was asking for.

Instead I get "Well the Brits are good"

I get a meaningless troop count.

Then I get a long list of what are at best--police actions.
I don't see a single example of a succesful combat operation
against a credible military force.

I feel like I'm arguing with a cocoanut.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Ralph


Then I get a long list of what are at best--police actions.
I don't see a single example of a succesful combat operation
against a credible military force.

I feel like I'm arguing with a cocoanut.

You are only seeing things in terms of a military action. History has shown that there are many more ways of tackling a political problem than just blasting away the opposition. The US, as I have said before, is like the man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

If there is one thing that Iraq demonstrates yet again, in case the US has already forgotten the lessons learned in Vietnam, that massively superior firepower does not necessarily solve all your problems.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

If there is one thing that Iraq demonstrates yet again, in case the US has already forgotten the lessons learned in Vietnam, that massively superior firepower does not necessarily solve all your problems.

Iraq is demonstrating a lot of things. It's demonstrating that the nightmare scenarios of many anti-war critics were simply wrong (examples: no flood of refugees, no prolonged bloody seige of Baghdad, no expansion of the war beyond Iraq's borders), and they will probably continue to be wrong. It demonstrates that the US could bring Saddam to justice, and following France and Russia's lead would leave him unaccountable for all his crimes and the Iraqis under his despotic and crushing rule. And it demonstrates that we are actually NOT only using force in Iraq, though some people choose to remain blind to that. Oh well, there's only so much reality some people can take before they need to run back to party lines for comfort.

And let's not just talk about the UN's lack of military successes: let's talk about their abject failures. Yugoslavia: anyone remember the UN safe haven that was overrun without any serious resistance from the UN peacekeepers? Anyone recall that the murder of a few UN troops in Rwanda got the UN to pull out, allowing an unfettered hand for those who commited genocide (which the UN refused to label as such because then they'de have to do something about it)? And even in Iraq, they mismanaged their security arrangements so badly (including removing barricades US troops put in place that blocked the road access the bombers used) that they got their top guy there killed.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


You are only seeing things in terms of a military action. History has shown that there are many more ways of tackling a political problem than just blasting away the opposition. The US, as I have said before, is like the man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

If there is one thing that Iraq demonstrates yet again, in case the US has already forgotten the lessons learned in Vietnam, that massively superior firepower does not necessarily solve all your problems.


Yes...but as usual--you're changing the subject. It was suggested that a UN force could've "kicked the living crap out of the Iraquis". We were specifically talking about a military action
and whether or not a UN force had the ability to carry it out.

Nobody seems to be able to provide some concrete examples of the UN doing that so now it's time to change the subject to Vietnam or non-military options.



This is why I feel like I'm arguing with a cocoanut.

[Ralph]

Originally posted by Zero
And, hey, why not go to my option about the U.S. being part of a U.N. force...why is it that some people choose domination over cooperation? Their options are either 'We are going to be in charge 100%' or 'We're not going to participate'. Why should the U.S. be in complete control of a U.N. peacekeeping force, or refuse to join in? Some people will give excuses, I'm sure, but what it boils down to for me is this: If the Bush administration wanted to invade Iraq for security and humanitarian reasons, did it matter who was making the decisions? The desire for complete U.S. control of the invasion points to less noble concerns and goals.

I think the US would prefer to be in charge because it doesn't want to see it's troops needlessly slaughtered.

I don't think they'd mind sharing command with the Brits but I don't think they want the lives of their troops dependant upon the military decisions of a "general" from countrys like France or Cameroon. Sorry to be "dissin" the troops of other countrys
but if it was my ass on the line----I'd prefer the decisions be made by someone who knows what they're doing.........

[Zero]

Originally posted by Ralph


I think the US would prefer to be in charge because it doesn't want to see it's troops needlessly slaughtered.

I don't think they'd mind sharing command with the Brits but I don't think they want the lives of their troops dependant upon the military decisions of a "general" from countrys like France or Cameroon. Sorry to be "dissin" the troops of other countrys
but if it was my ass on the line----I'd prefer the decisions be made by someone who knows what they're doing......... I don't think that was the issue...frankly, I think the issue was what to do with Iraq after the invasion. I don't think a U.N. move would have allowed Republican donors to get no-bid contracts and cheat American taxpayers.

[Crossbow]

Bump!

Due to the new plan to add troops to secure the defeated nation of Iraq,
the halt of the "we are winning" and "stay the course" talk,
with Bush himself finally admitting mistakes,
the results of the mid-term elections, and
how the support from the resident pro-war crowd ('Skeptic', 'rikzilla', 'Luke T.', et al) has been deafening in its collective silence,

This seemed like a good time to take a small trip down memory lane.

[Darth Rotor]

Bump!

This seemed like a good time to take a small trip down memory lane.
Does it make you happy, or does it make you grit your teeth?

DR

[Mycroft]

Bump!

Due to the new plan to add troops to secure the defeated nation of Iraq,
the halt of the "we are winning" and "stay the course" talk,
with Bush himself finally admitting mistakes,
the results of the mid-term elections, and
how the support from the resident pro-war crowd ('Skeptic', 'rikzilla', 'Luke T.', et al) has been deafening in its collective silence,

This seemed like a good time to take a small trip down memory lane.


What do you think US policy in Iraq should be from this day forward?


What effect do you believe those decisions would have on the Iraqi people?

[SezMe]

Iraq is demonstrating a lot of things. It's demonstrating that the nightmare scenarios of many anti-war critics were simply wrong (examples: no flood of refugees, no prolonged bloody seige of Baghdad, no expansion of the war beyond Iraq's borders), and they will probably continue to be wrong.
I'm looking forward to your updated assessment, Zig.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Almost 4 years on, the mindset of the Iraq war hawks hasn't changed. Check out this short letter to the editor from Friday's Dallas Morning News.

If we're working for Iraqis, they should pay
Since the U.S. is going to send more troops to Iraq to train Iraq forces to protect Iraqi citizens to protect Iraqi property and interests, why isn't oil-rich Iraq footing the bill?
Richard Wood, Dallas

And these sorts of people have the balls to say people who were opposed to Iraq "don't get it."

[rikzilla]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2252270#post2252270