Now lets not get into who supported who debates...

[NullPointerException]

A lot of accusations have been thrown around as to who was supporting what evil dictator when. Now sure, the USA has a track record going back almost a century of supporting questionable leaders... but look at the French and the Russians! Both were making lucrative economic deals with Saddam with no regard to the moral implications of their actions. Not only that, but they wanted to keep the exploitive oil deals they established with Saddam after we overthrew him!

The more you know....
:book:

[Otther]

Both are fine points...


but your slant is too obvious...

you needed to throw in a few more examples of the USA screwing up and you might have fooled the few reasonable people here into thinking you were one of them. ;)

[The Fool]

Originally posted by NullPointerException
A lot of accusations have been thrown around as to who was supporting what evil dictator when. Now sure, the USA has a track record going back almost a century of supporting questionable leaders... but look at the French and the Russians! Both were making lucrative economic deals with Saddam with no regard to the moral implications of their actions. Not only that, but they wanted to keep the exploitive oil deals they established with Saddam after we overthrew him!

The more you know....
:book:
Anything else we shouldn't get into? The disgusting dried fish eating habits of Scandinavians?

[Zep]

Originally posted by NullPointerException
A lot of accusations have been thrown around as to who was supporting what evil dictator when. Now sure, the USA has a track record going back almost a century of supporting questionable leaders... but look at the French and the Russians! Both were making lucrative economic deals with Saddam with no regard to the moral implications of their actions. Not only that, but they wanted to keep the exploitive oil deals they established with Saddam after we overthrew him!

The more you know....
:book: Well, gosh. Whoulda thunk?

Mum! Mum! Jimmy's playing in the mud puddles, so that makes it OK for me too, doesn't it! Can I, huh? Please! PLEEEZE!!!

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zep
Well, gosh. Whoulda thunk?

Mum! Mum! Jimmy's playing in the mud puddles, so that makes it OK for me too, doesn't it! Can I, huh? Please! PLEEEZE!!!

I think the point was that few are guilt free. Some are getting tired of, after admitting our involvement, still hearing about it. Old news. Wanna harp on something pick another country on that subject or perhaps a new subject. Seems selective memory is being used on the parts of some to just continue ragging on the US alone. Hey, we had slavery too. Spend some time on that.

[Dorian Gray]

Now sure, the USA has a track record going back almost a century of supporting questionable leaders... Even longer if you include our own leaders.

[Tesserat]

Originally posted by Troll


I think the point was that few are guilt free. Some are getting tired of, after admitting our involvement, still hearing about it. Old news. Wanna harp on something pick another country on that subject or perhaps a new subject. Seems selective memory is being used on the parts of some to just continue ragging on the US alone. Hey, we had slavery too. Spend some time on that.

I'm sure that Saddam would love the same consideration:

"OK, I admit my involment with gassing the Kurds. Now could everybody please stop harping on it?"

[Troll]

Originally posted by Tesserat


I'm sure that Saddam would love the same consideration:

"OK, I admit my involment with gassing the Kurds. Now could everybody please stop harping on it?"

So what would you like for us to do? Fix our mistake? In the process of it. Not that it does any good because now you can all harp on that as well while still skipping over the guilt of any others. The problem with your analogy is what he did is punishable. What the US and numerous others did is foreign policy. We may not like the policy as it was conducted at the time, but then some of ya don't like the policy of fixing mistakes either.

But I want to know why it is that you guys keep reminding the US of their involvement when no one is denying it. Is it that you can't debate and find it easier to state the obvious, repeatedly?

[Zep]

Originally posted by Troll
So what would you like for us to do? Fix our mistake? In the process of it. Not that it does any good because now you can all harp on that as well while still skipping over the guilt of any others. The problem with your analogy is what he did is punishable. What the US and numerous others did is foreign policy. We may not like the policy as it was conducted at the time, but then some of ya don't like the policy of fixing mistakes either.

Sorry, but the view elsewhere is that this is a situation where the US is making MORE mistakes in foreign policy, not "fixing" anything.

Until recently, the US was essentially respected as a large but basically well-controlled bull in a small china shop (and the only bull once the USSR was dissolved). In the last few years, that bull has reacted to a mosquito sting by wrecking the shop trying to stamp on the mosquito, whereas a short sharp directed spray of bug-killer would have done a far better job without disturbing anything else in the shop.

But I want to know why it is that you guys keep reminding the US of their involvement when no one is denying it. Is it that you can't debate and find it easier to state the obvious, repeatedly?

How many times must a stubborn child be reminded not to touch the flames? As many times as it takes until they learn not to get burned.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zep
Sorry, but the view elsewhere is that this is a situation where the US is making MORE mistakes in foreign policy, not "fixing" anything.

Until recently, the US was essentially respected as a large but basically well-controlled bull in a small china shop (and the only bull once the USSR was dissolved). In the last few years, that bull has reacted to a mosquito sting by wrecking the shop trying to stamp on the mosquito, whereas a short sharp directed spray of bug-killer would have done a far better job without disturbing anything else in the shop

How many times must a stubborn child be reminded not to touch the flames? As many times as it takes until they learn not to get burned.

Well you're a bright guy (seriously, no insult intended) so you had to have seen this coming.

The US gets the guilt by association and support for Iraq. Fair enough. Who associates and supports the US and has done so during the time periods that are relevant to this topic? Last I checked, Australia is also in Iraq and has been a longtime supporter of the US. Feel free to exercise a little self-loathing, maybe even make a few dozen posts about how cocked up it is that you guys support the US. We look forward to you joining the group therapy session.

[Troll]

You know, we really should blame people for supporting whoever it is they support and end up doing nasty things.

I've already, as an American, accepted blame for tons of things over the past just shy of 300 years. But what about those that supported and aided us in all our wrong doings? France, Australia, England and others surely must bear some responsibility in all of this. France helping us in all those previous wars on our soil and not anywhere near their own homeland must be made to pay for helping to create the US monster that roams the earth in these times. sure it was a couple of hundred years ago, but hey, when the hell are they gonna learn not to support the US.

And England? Whoah, those dudes have been backing the US in almost every endeavor since the US became independent of them.

Australia? Well come on, they were in Vietnam helping the US masacre people that didn't want any help and where are they now? Iraq. Can you believe that?

If these countries could learn to just not involve themselves with evil countries maybe evil countries like the US would stop and ponder how it is that they became so alone in the world.

Yes, this is all out of sarcasm. But it applies to the claims and accusations made soley agaisnt the US and not the other countries that are also involved. Countries, I may add, that I've yet to see anyone from accepting responsibility for their actions of the past like many Americans here have.;)

[Some Friggin Guy]

You know, Troll, I've seen you admit that the US is culpable, at least in part, for supporting Hussein. That's quite gracious of you. I will admit the same thing.

And I am not asking for the US to stand trial for the earlier support or anything like that.

However...


I don't seem to recall anyone in the administration admitting to this country's culpability. I admit, I may have missed it, but I don't believe so. I keep up pretty well with the news. If I did, would you mind linking a story?

My issue here is that the administration should come forward and say "We screwed up in the past by our support of Hussein's regime. This war is our way of cleaning up our mess." I still wouldn't agree with the war, but I would at least have some respect for the administration.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy
You know, Troll, I've seen you admit that the US is culpable, at least in part, for supporting Hussein. That's quite gracious of you. I will admit the same thing.

And I am not asking for the US to stand trial for the earlier support or anything like that.

However...


I don't seem to recall anyone in the administration admitting to this country's culpability. I admit, I may have missed it, but I don't believe so. I keep up pretty well with the news. If I did, would you mind linking a story?

My issue here is that the administration should come forward and say "We screwed up in the past by our support of Hussein's regime. This war is our way of cleaning up our mess." I still wouldn't agree with the war, but I would at least have some respect for the administration.

to be honest, I think you will never see much of anything like that due to changes in administrations. The American public isn't the brightest of the bunch. If the guy in charge at the time admits US involvement caused the problem, the general public tends to assign blame to the guy admitting to it. But a good number of people who would agree with my comments about the American public will also stop just shy of saying I'm right because here's a member of it accepting the responsibility and that doesn't leave them anything to complain about.

It's really a damned if you do, damned if you don't type of thing. Normally I just blow it off. But as was mentioned before, there are others that bear the same burden of blame for Saddam, where are the accusations and complaints about them. I'm all for a fair trial for all parties involved, including "accomplices". I'm just wondering why few want to have all accomplices answer up or why few if any assign blame to other accomplices.

[Some Friggin Guy]

Valid points, all, Troll.

And you are right, the American public does have a pretty short attention span. I was only speaking for my own personal view.

I also want to make it perfectly clear that I am not saying all guilty parties should not be held responsible. They should. I refer only to the US because that's where I live and that's where I vote.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Some Friggin Guy
Valid points, all, Troll.

And you are right, the American public does have a pretty short attention span. I was only speaking for my own personal view.

I also want to make it perfectly clear that I am not saying all guilty parties should not be held responsible. They should. I refer only to the US because that's where I live and that's where I vote.

Well I meant no offense. I was speaking of the public in general as evidenced by some of the idiots I've lived with, worked with, gone to school with and such. But then there's a bunch of us that can figure things out for ourselves even if some people from other countries feel we can't and need to be reminded over and over.;)

And I agree that we should have it out in a trial that we did in the past support the twit and other twits. It'll help our own idiots learn and remember for future reference to be careful of who we support. I just hope that others are willing to accept the blame for their own involvement in places as well. Otherwise, in a few years we'll have cleared things up and others will still need to learn. Not that I wouldn't be perfectly happy constantly reminding them of their errors.;)

*edited to add the following*

For someone that doesn't want to agree with me, you sure haven't learned your lesson, since you seem to be doing it a good amount.:p

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Troll
And England? Whoah, those dudes have been backing the US in almost every endeavor since the US became independent of them.


England? Just England? No Scots or Welsh or Irish anywhere in all this?

Well, I guess we were shoulder to shoulder with you against them evil southeners and greasy mexicans and filthy Philipinos.

Not to mention them goddam gooks of course!

[Some Friggin Guy]

I've been working all night. Give me a break.

Actually, what surprises most people who only partially know me is that I am a realist.

Those who know me a little from my posts or my internet talk show (shameless self-promotion alert) think that I have to be the most left-biased, liberal borderline communist out there. In some repsects I am, but I try to be fair.

One thing I will freely admit to, and I'm very honest about it, is the fact that George W. Is quite possibly the most dangerous human being ever to hold the office of US President in my opinion. That opinion is based on a great deal of research and news hunting I have done for the show I so shamelessly promoted earlier.

As for why I don't want to agree with you, it's mainly because you're so much fun to debate!

[Mike B.]

If we can cut through the hyperbole and strawmen thrown out there is a point here.

There were huge amounts of arms shipements to Iraq from countries like France from 1973 until right up to 2003. I am not condeming France or saying they are evil. However, it does get tiresome to hear "Le Monde" say things like they can't understand why the US supports dictatorships.

It is similar when the EU condemns American "economic impearilism" then turns around and subsidizes its agriculture and aeronautics industry trying to shut out competition. (Of course again I am not saying the US is innocent.)

It reminds me of the scene in the movie Casablanca when Claude Raines says "I am shocked to find there is illeagal gambling going on here" as he is handed his winnings.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


England? Just England? No Scots or Welsh or Irish anywhere in all this?

Well, I guess we were shoulder to shoulder with you against them evil southeners and greasy mexicans and filthy Philipinos.

Not to mention them goddam gooks of course!

If in the racist mention of "gooks" you mean Japanese, Koreans, or China then yes the UK did stand "shoulder to shoulder." A good thing to because the unit that probably did the best fighting on the UN side would have been a UK Glouchester regiment.

or if "filthy Philipinos" you mean the ones that were fighting the common enemy of the US and Uk: Japan then you would be right again.
:p

or if "greasy Mexicans" you mean the US and the UK both at least giving tacit support to those Mexicans who were trying to overthrow the French puppet state and its supporters, put there during the American Civil War then you would be right again...;)

[KelvinG]

THOSE WHO DO NOT LEARN FROM THE PAST ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT.

While dwelling on the past can be a bad thing, what's worse is shrugging one's shoulders and saying "Oh well, what's done is done" and not learning anything from the experience.

One would hope that past indiscretions on the part of any country or government are analyzed and action is taken not to let mistakes happen again.

Someone mentioned slavery in this thread. Yes, that is a terrible chapter in the history of the US. However, while the ugliness should not be forgotten, we can look back now and realize how horrible it was and how it should never happen again.
Lessons are learned. Dwelling on it wouldn't make sense.

Of course, politics is usually full of leaders with short memories. It oh so very handy to just smily coyly and blame past administrations for problems.

[Troll]

Originally posted by KelvinG
THOSE WHO DO NOT LEARN FROM THE PAST ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT.

While dwelling on the past can be a bad thing, what's worse is shrugging one's shoulders and saying "Oh well, what's done is done" and not learning anything from the experience.

One would hope that past indiscretions on the part of any country or government are analyzed and action is taken not to let mistakes happen again.

Someone mentioned slavery in this thread. Yes, that is a terrible chapter in the history of the US. However, while the ugliness should not be forgotten, we can look back now and realize how horrible it was and how it should never happen again.
Lessons are learned. Dwelling on it wouldn't make sense.

Of course, politics is usually full of leaders with short memories. It oh so very handy to just smily coyly and blame past administrations for problems.

No argument from me. Yes it may have been past administrations whose policies have created messes. But any that come after can take the heat for not seeing the problems and fixing them. Granted not everyone is going to like whatever methods may be used to fix them, but then maybe that will be the lesson we need to make sure is learned for the next time.

[NullPointerException]

I was just trying to point out that they are alledging guilt by association when they are equally guilty of similair practices. For instance, supporting a revolutionary group in a third world country that lead to the deaths of thousands to achieve their own political ends. Also:

1. What America did is SOP
2. Any country of significant power has chosen some bad people to support
3. We have not produced any dictators that killed millions of innocents, thank you Germany, Russia so you both can shut up!(im just kidding, I love Germany... and some pats of Russia are ok)

It's not just about knowing things, its about remembering them at the right time.
:book:

[crackmonkey]

There are also degrees of support. The aid the US gave Saddam was miniscule compared to Russia and France. If one had to lay blame, France and Russia made Saddam armed Saddam to the teeth and made him what he was. The US gave Saddam some battlefield intel to use against Iran when it looked like Iran was going to win the war.
While the US has propped up some pretty horrific characters, in this case the US was pretty much on the sidelines.

[Luke T.]

Political realities. The USSR was the Big Bad Wolf. Iran served as a foil to the USSR's designs in the Middle East. Thus we supported the Shah, who was a cruel man. Lesser of two evils. Reactionary forces overthrew the evil Shah, and they extended their hatred toward the U.S. for supporting him. So we turned to Iraq as the next lesser of two evils and supported Hussein against the Ayotollah.

Now if we weren't in a nuclear standoff with the USSR in the first place, none of this would have happened. Too bad. Would the world have been better off if we allowed the USSR its way in the Middle East? I doubt it.

The third world nations learned how to play both sides against the middle and were able to arm themselves with weapons from both. And the little people were crushed in the press.

The world still hasn't recovered from the pressure vacuums left over from World War Two, and arguably World War One. And now there is the additional pressure vacuum left from the collapse of the USSR.

The fact remains that the U.S. is the best friend the world has. We offer the best hope. It is no coincidence we are the last ones standing. Only small minds will fail to see.

[Tesserat]

Originally posted by Troll


So what would you like for us to do? Fix our mistake? In the process of it. Not that it does any good because now you can all harp on that as well while still skipping over the guilt of any others. The problem with your analogy is what he did is punishable. What the US and numerous others did is foreign policy. We may not like the policy as it was conducted at the time, but then some of ya don't like the policy of fixing mistakes either.

But I want to know why it is that you guys keep reminding the US of their involvement when no one is denying it. Is it that you can't debate and find it easier to state the obvious, repeatedly?

Define something as "policy" and presto, it isn't a crime? I don't agree. Countries can have policies that are considered to be crimes against humanity, war crimes, human rights abuses...

The US doesn't have a "policy of fixing mistakes". If it did, George would have said the US made a mistake in Iran, and now are going into fix it.
But his reason for going into Iran was to find weapons of mass destruction. Then it turned in to a war for freedom. If the latest spin is that the US is correcting a mistake, I haven't heard that yet. And as others have pointed out, most of the blame should go to Russia.

In any momentous occasion in history people are going to ask what were the causes of that event. I think it's great when individuals can look at what their country has done and say this was good this was bad. But when the administration of that country can't admit themselves when their policies went wrong, then they should be reminded until they do admit it. How else can the country, and its government learn? If the official policy of the administration is that nothing they do is a mistake, how is that different from say, China?

Troll, you said that the United States is fixing their mistake. I disagree that going into a country and killing thousands of people to take out one man is a good way of doing it.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Tesserat


Define something as "policy" and presto, it isn't a crime? I don't agree. Countries can have policies that are considered to be crimes against humanity, war crimes, human rights abuses...

The US doesn't have a "policy of fixing mistakes". If it did, George would have said the US made a mistake in Iran, and now are going into fix it.
But his reason for going into Iran was to find weapons of mass destruction. Then it turned in to a war for freedom. If the latest spin is that the US is correcting a mistake, I haven't heard that yet. And as others have pointed out, most of the blame should go to Russia.

In any momentous occasion in history people are going to ask what were the causes of that event. I think it's great when individuals can look at what their country has done and say this was good this was bad. But when the administration of that country can't admit themselves when their policies went wrong, then they should be reminded until they do admit it. How else can the country, and its government learn? If the official policy of the administration is that nothing they do is a mistake, how is that different from say, China?

Troll, you said that the United States is fixing their mistake. I disagree that going into a country and killing thousands of people to take out one man is a good way of doing it.

Well one can't admit to making a mistake until after it has been made. People tend to think what they are doing or trying to do is not a mistake until they fail or it fails them. As for the war being a mistake we're stuck with opinions until we see the end result.

Many in the US felt it was a mistake to not remove Saddam back in the 90's. The new administration seems to have some of those people. So they recognize the mistake the US made under a previous administration and are trying their method of fixing it. Now maybe we'll see that removing Saddam was a mistake and things will get worse or be just as bad. Then we have to hope we don't forget about it and vote for a person that also won't forget about the mistakes, if found to be such, made now.

I said this earlier and I still find it to be applicable as part of this reply as well.

Yes it may have been past administrations whose policies have created messes. But any that come after can take the heat for not seeing the problems and fixing them. Granted not everyone is going to like whatever methods may be used to fix them, but then maybe that will be the lesson we need to make sure is learned for the next time.

[Ion]

This is a post impressive to me because of the finesse in expressing common sense in reasoning:
Originally posted by Tesserat


Define something as "policy" and presto, it isn't a crime? I don't agree. Countries can have policies that are considered to be crimes against humanity, war crimes, human rights abuses...

The US doesn't have a "policy of fixing mistakes". If it did, George would have said the US made a mistake in Iran, and now are going into fix it.
But his reason for going into Iran was to find weapons of mass destruction. Then it turned in to a war for freedom. If the latest spin is that the US is correcting a mistake, I haven't heard that yet. And as others have pointed out, most of the blame should go to Russia.

In any momentous occasion in history people are going to ask what were the causes of that event. I think it's great when individuals can look at what their country has done and say this was good this was bad. But when the administration of that country can't admit themselves when their policies went wrong, then they should be reminded until they do admit it. How else can the country, and its government learn? If the official policy of the administration is that nothing they do is a mistake, how is that different from say, China?

Troll, you said that the United States is fixing their mistake. I disagree that going into a country and killing thousands of people to take out one man is a good way of doing it.
To me, the gist of it is:

"...Countries can have policies that are considered to be crimes against humanity, war crimes, human rights abuses..."

"...I disagree that going into a country and killing thousands of people to take out one man is a good way of doing it."

[Troll]

Originally posted by Ion
To me, this is an impressive post:

To me, the gist of it is:

"...I disagree that going into a country and killing thousands of people to take out one man is a good way of doing it."

And again, I offer the following words:

Granted not everyone is going to like whatever methods may be used to fix them, but then maybe that will be the lesson we need to make sure is learned for the next time

[Ion]

I read your earlier post, Troll.

You state that policies are to be judged after most of the facts are known.

In Bush's case there is too much of fishy policies to wait much further.

It's already late to save deaths, I judged Bush and Bush should have been judged by now.

Supporting a dictator similar to Hussein in Uzbekistan, having Cheney draw maps of Iraq's oil one year before the war which shows Bush's interest in Iraq's oil regardless of Hussein, having Bush and Cheney in energy meetings with Lay from Enron, having Enron financing Bush's campaign in 2000, having Bush misleading U.S. about WMDs in Iraq, Al-Qaeda and Niger links with Iraq, spending money on a war advertized thru lies while taking money from the economy, and many more like this, these are pointing to a grave lack of professional integrity by Bush (i.e.: not being the leader of all of the U.S. citizens but being instead the leader of a few select U.S. interests) while thousands of Iraqis were killed and maimed.

You can say that I jump the gun in judging Bush.

I say that I see Bush clearly.

[Tesserat]

Originally posted by Troll


...but then maybe that will be the lesson we need to make sure is learned for the next time

Yes. And to learn that lesson, we must always remember what happened, and as much as possible, have access to information untainted by the spin of the current government.

In Canada, on Rememberance day, the motto is "Less we forget". To have a government distort the reasons a soldier has given his life for his service is a crime that shouldn't be put aside.

I think this:
Originally posted by Troll

Then we have to hope we don't forget about it and vote for a person that also won't forget about the mistakes, if found to be such, made now.



Is the perfect answer to this thread.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Ion
I read your earlier post, Troll.

You state that policies are to be judged after most of the facts are known.

In Bush's case there is too much of fishy policies to wait much further.

It's already late to save deaths, I judged Bush and Bush should have been judged by now.

Supporting a dictator similar to Hussein in Uzbekistan, having Cheney draw maps of Iraq's oil one year before the war which shows Bush's interest in Iraq's oil regardless of Hussein, having Bush and Cheney in energy meetings with Lay from Enron, having Enron financing Bush's campaign in 2000, having Bush misleading U.S. about WMDs in Iraq, Al-Qaeda and Niger links with Iraq, spending money on a war advertized thru lies while taking money from the economy, and many more like this, these are pointing to a grave lack of professional integrity by Bush while thousands of Iraqis died.

You can say that I jump the gun in judging Bush.

I say that I see Bush clearly.

Not quite what I said. I said some of our previous policies led to mistakes. But you never know what mistake is made until it has been made. It would seem as though many other cold war policies had a positive outcome and as such would not be known by many as a mistake. The key is not to repeat mistakes and even better correct them, if not during the time of the administration(s) that made them then in the ones that follow.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Tesserat


Yes. And to learn that lesson, we must always remember what happened, and as much as possible, have access to information untainted by the spin of the current government.

In Canada, on Rememberance day, the motto is "Less we forget". To have a government distort the reasons a soldier has given his life for his service is a crime that shouldn't be put aside.

I think this:

Then we have to hope we don't forget about it and vote for a person that also won't forget about the mistakes, if found to be such, made now.

Is the perfect answer to this thread.

Thanks. Now if I could convince you and others that all my postings are the perfect answer I think we'd have a better world to live in. :D

But seriously, I realize mistakes get made, I've made tons myself so I speak from experience, unfortunately. Politics is like dating. You try some things to see how they work. In some cases you make some mistakes, fix them if you can, move on. In other cases you make larger mistakes or repeat old mistakes and you get kicked to the curb and someone else takes your spot.

[Ion]

Originally posted by Troll

...
But you never know what mistake is made until it has been made.
...

Well, this mistake:
Originally posted by Tesserat

...
To have a government distort the reasons a soldier has given his life for his service is a crime that shouldn't be put aside.
...

is obvious by now.

The time to judge is overdue, by now.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Ion

Well, this mistake:

is obvious by now.

The time to judge is overdue, by now.

Then don't vote for him when his time comes for another chance. Pretty simple really.

[Ion]

Yes, I know.

I want to convert others too, into not voting for him.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Ion
Yes, I know.

I want to convert others too, into not voting for him.

Well, given the alternatives at the moment, you won't be convincing me no matter how often you repeat yourself. But then again, there's still time for him to make mistakes I feel are capable of changing my view. Just have to wait and see if he makes those ones.

[Tesserat]

Originally posted by Troll


Politics is like dating. You try some things to see how they work. In some cases you make some mistakes, fix them if you can, move on.

OK, I say this one is definitely not perfect.

It's a bit frivolous a description for a process that kills thousands of people. And it's missing some things.

I'd say, you try some things to see how they work. In some cases you make some mistakes. You'd admit to all who have been been harmed by these mistakes, that they were mistakes. You ask the people that were harmed how they would like the problems to be fixed. If possible you do what they ask.

If a country doesn't have the guts to do that, then they shouldn't "just try some things to see how they work".

And "move on"? Who decides when? The families of the dead?

Or is it decided by the attention span of the television audience.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Tesserat


OK, I say this one is definitely not perfect.

It's a bit frivolous a description for a process that kills thousands of people. And it's missing some things.

I'd say, you try some things to see how they work. In some cases you make some mistakes. You'd admit to all who have been been harmed by these mistakes, that they were mistakes. You ask the people that were harmed how they would like the problems to be fixed. If possible you do what they ask.

If a country doesn't have the guts to do that, then they shouldn't "just try some things to see how they work".

And "move on"? Who decides when? The families of the dead?

Or is it decided by the attention span of the television audience.

Well other methods were tried and failed. So there we have established mistakes. I wouldn't say that going into a war that will possibly create a state where people are safer is a mistake. If things go back to the way they were then I would agree that this was a mistake. What you are talking about is the accidents and mistakes made in the process which led to the deaths of innocents, I'm talking about overall action in general.

We made a mistake in not supporting the people when we said we would to overthrow the guy. Several hundred thousand died. We admitted that was a mistake and apologized and went back to fix it.

I know the whole "dating" analogy may seem to be cold and insensitive, but I don't want anyone in charge that bases their action on emotion either. Doesn't mean there is no compassion or regret, but ultimately the best decisions about things that will affect others are made from the mind and not the heart.

So I will now ask two questions:

1) Did we make a mistake in not supporting them, as we said or otherwise suggested we would assist, in overthrowing Saddam?

2) If the method used to do so now is not the way to have corrected our past mistake then what method would have been better?

Bear in mind several hundred thousand lives were lost due to our previous mistake. Supporting an uprising would still have led to deaths of the people of Iraq, even more in civilian casualties as they would be the ones fighting their own military. Talk and sanctions did nothing to help them for over 12 years. And having a larger coalition just means more peope involved in the current process.

[Tesserat]

Originally posted by Troll


1) Did we make a mistake in not supporting them, as we said or otherwise suggested we would assist, in overthrowing Saddam?


I'm sorry Troll, I can't say that I know enough about was said, or suggested about the US assisting in overthrowing Saddam to give a meaningful answer. And I don't know what requests were made by the Iraqui people for assitance in an overthrow attempt.

I can only think of the Hungarian uprising as an example. The Hungarians revolted against the Russians because they believed that they were being told that the rest of the world would step in and help them. No one came, and the Hungarians were stomped back into submission, and were extremely bitter for long time.

So if I accept what you say about the offer of assistance in overthrowing Sadam, then yes, I would say it was a mistake, and a tragic one, since there was already a historical lesson to be followed.

Originally posted by Troll
a
2) If the method used to do so now is not the way to have corrected our past mistake then what method would have been better?

Bear in mind several hundred thousand lives were lost due to our previous mistake. Supporting an uprising would still have led to deaths of the people of Iraq, even more in civilian casualties as they would be the ones fighting their own military. Talk and sanctions did nothing to help them for over 12 years. And having a larger coalition just means more peope involved in the current process.

Actually I would support supporting an uprising. I think freedom is more meaningful when won by the people themselves, rather than having it handed to them. It would also give more control and pride to the people of Iraq. I think it would also give more credibility to the action if you could be said it was the Iraqi people who did it, with the US supporting.

I don't know that it would necessarily result in more civilian casualties, either. Hopefully there be less firing into communities to try and take out various leaders, since the Iraqis would see each other as people dying and not as collateral damage. (I don't know if collateral damage is the correct term.)


Originally posted by Troll

What you are talking about is the accidents and mistakes made in the process which led to the deaths of innocents, I'm talking about overall action in general.



I think I understood that, but I started focusing on the costs of mistakes. I'm sorry if it seemed off-topic. Also, one of the tests I use in evaluating general principles is whether or not the action makes sense when applied to specific cases.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Ion

Well, this mistake:

is obvious by now.

The time to judge is overdue, by now.

The time to judge the war in Iraq is at least 10 years away.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Ion

Well, this mistake:

is obvious by now.

The time to judge is overdue, by now.

The time to judge the war in Iraq is at least 20 years away.

[NullPointerException]

Stop throwing out "death tolls' like they mean something to you. They don't, you randomly select and interpert them as support for your own opinions. It's a disgrace to those people who died to be used as a bloody shirt for someone's cause, especially in a moral debate where the dead may have disagreed with you.

[Ion]

Originally posted by NullPointerException
Stop throwing out "death tolls' like they mean something to you. They don't, you randomly select and interpert them as support for your own opinions.
...

I think that you don't know what 'death tolls' mean to many people in the world.

Outside your niche in U.S..

In my case, they do support opinions that I have in life.

When Tesserat brings up an analogy between uprising in Iraq and uprising in Hungary, I relate to it.

I was born in Romania -a neighbor of Hungary- years after the Hungarian uprising of 1956 which I heard off, but still I was born under a dictator' system that I saw.

My father used to work at the 'Canal', the channel that tied the Danube and the Black Sea, under the work standards of political prisoners.

An uncle was imprisoned in Siberia by U.S.S.R. because he did fly airplanes for the allied forces during the second World War, was released from Siberia before I was born, came back to Romania to say that they were fed frozen raw fish that was thrown at them, then he died within fourteen days of his release.

My opinions in life made me going from Romania to France, to Canada, and to U.S. now, looking for a country of the just.

When I was in Canada, in Vancouver like Tesserat, I didn't like that I made the immigration thru an education deemed by the government as being skilled, yet I couldn't find work in my line of education while the special interests there (like feminists and rednecks) seemed to have dug their local life support niches.

I read carefully Tesserat's posts (even before this thread's: "...OK I admit my involvement in gassing the Kurds. Now could everybody please stop harping on it?"), and I must say that there were in Vancouver a number of worldly educated liberals that I do like, but like in my quest for a country of the just, most people just about everywhere in the world are selfish, narrow-minded and don't care enough.

Albeit the 'death toll' threshold's level had been trespassed by now by most of the world' standards, when the news reported back in March that a Jordanian man walking in the streets of Baghdad had been the first death of the war, I was asking then in another forum:

why was this one man killed?

So that Bush and Powell in February 2003 could have lied in U.N. about their motives?

[Tesserat]

Originally posted by Luke T.


The time to judge the war in Iraq is at least 20 years away.

I don't know, Luke. Bush is up for reelection in 2004. I think some judgments should be made now.

And while time gives a better perspective, the other thing to remember is that history is written by the winners.

On a completely unrelated note, I'll be taking the annoying part of my signature off soon. I hope the non-smoking battle is going well. I know that the holidays don't usually help.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Tesserat


I don't know, Luke. Bush is up for reelection in 2004. I think some judgments should be made now.

At least wait until next November to make a judgement. Things will look much different by then.

And while time gives a better perspective, the other thing to remember is that history is written by the winners.

It will be easy to see if we accomplished the establishment of democracy in Iraq 20 years from now no matter who "wins."


On a completely unrelated note, I'll be taking the annoying part of my signature off soon. I hope the non-smoking battle is going well. I know that the holidays don't usually help.

The battle is going badly. I screwed around with those pills that help you quit to very bad mental effect.

No excuses, though. I am still smoking.

Your sig line has been more helpful than you realize. It has kept the idea of quitting a constant in my thoughts. Every time I light up. That has to be building up some sort of internal critical mass.

[Tesserat]

The problem I have with waiting 20 years to make a judgment is that sounds suspiciously close to "the ends justify the means"

That as long as democracy is established, that it doesn't matter how many people die.

I can't be that dispassionate about people dying in a war that was rushed into being on flimsy evidence, and a president's scare tactics.

This whole topic makes me depressed and bitter. Bush manages to shove his agenda onto the American people, get American soldiers into Iraq, and then there's a gigantic mood swing in the country, because it would be un American not support the troops in Iraq. As if it would be disloyal to the soldiers to say " You're doing a great job, but you shouldn't be there"

And then it becomes easier to say let's not think about this now, let's wait 20 years.

If I was an Iraqi citizen whose wife and kids were killed by coalition bombs, I wouldn't be thinking about what Iraq might be like 20 years from now. I'd be holding their bodies, desperately hoping against all rationality that I might hear a heartbeat, or feel some warmth.

But I'm going to have to stop posting on these subjects. I like performing in the states, and the people I've met there. If it's becoming a suspicious activity to carry an almanac, I can only imagine how suspicious is it must look to not support the war in Iraq.

So
Go America, go! I wish you great success in bringing freedom to all the Iraqis who survive.

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by Tesserat
If I was an Iraqi citizen whose wife and kids were killed by coalition bombs, I wouldn't be thinking about what Iraq might be like 20 years from now. I'd be holding their bodies, desperately hoping against all rationality that I might hear a heartbeat, or feel some warmth. It may be because I've been unusually emotional as of late (don't ask), but the above thought spoke to me more than it normally might have. Thank you.

[NullPointerException]

Tesserat,

:id:

Friggin off the scale man. In ten years, if the world doesn't end before that, get back to me if you have figured out why I find your position ironic.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Troll

Well you're a bright guy (seriously, no insult intended) so you had to have seen this coming.

The US gets the guilt by association and support for Iraq. Fair enough. Who associates and supports the US and has done so during the time periods that are relevant to this topic? Last I checked, Australia is also in Iraq and has been a longtime supporter of the US. Feel free to exercise a little self-loathing, maybe even make a few dozen posts about how cocked up it is that you guys support the US. We look forward to you joining the group therapy session. Not quite right with the facts there.

In fact, our "beloved" PM, John Howard, a noted monarchist and militarist, and contrary to the majority of the Australian population's wishes, decided that Australia would particpate in the Iraqi escapade regardless. Therefore a few thousand of our boys were in on the skylarking back in April, including our SAS (equivalent to the US Rangers). The same people operated in Afghanistan too, btw.

Since that time he has been buddying up to GWB like they were best of pals, although Dubya managed to forget Howard's name more than once, and then snub us by treating us like a toilet-stop on his whirlwind Asian tour a few months ago.

Meanwhile, most people of Australia, happen to think Howard is into unmentionably sycophantic brown-nosing of Dubya, and that this is below contempt here.

But let me make an issue clear: Very few here would have particularly opposed the US removing Saddam, covertly or otherwise. And it would hardly be seen as a method of attonement for "past sins" in supporting the guy. What sticks in the craw is the ill-advised, short-sighted, completely cavallier, blatently contrived, and over-the-top way this was achieved. I described above in analogy how a better result could have been achieved easily with much greater finesse, at far less expense, and with almost no opposition.

Exasperation???

[Tesserat]

Originally posted by NullPointerException
Tesserat,

:id:

Friggin off the scale man. In ten years, if the world doesn't end before that, get back to me if you have figured out why I find your position ironic.

Given the multiple points of view on this subject, I'd say that there's lots of posters who could find irony in almost any post. Coming on and asking me to find what you find ironic is pretty lame. It's like telling somebody "If you would be honest, you'd know why I was angry at you"

My guess on why you think my post ironic:

1. You haven't figured out the difference between specific and general cases

2. You're not quite sure what ironic means. Read George Carlin's Brain Dropping for a nice discussion of the misuse of the word. You might actually be thinking "hypocritical". It's one of the most common misuses.

3. You like the feeling of superiority it gives you to not actually say what you find ironic.

4. You're testing me for the $1,000,000 prize under the "mind Reading" catagory.

I'm not going to try to find your point for you. Do your own work.