Originally Posted by Yoda
I didn't say everyone accepted it as gospel...merely that I've run into entire slews of anti-war people who do.
You said: they repeat it "as if the fact that a dead person said it makes it gospel truth". Which was spurious and off point (as you're fond of pointing out of others
)
Originally Posted by Yoda
You've misunderstood (and judging by the reputation I've received, so has someone else
). I see the irony in what you're describing; but only because you've clarified what you said earlier (which was considerably vaguer).
That said, it's not really that ironic, anymore than it's ironic that both Hitler and Patton were great public speakers. It's rather inevitable for the leader of any state, I'd imagine, and as such drawing parallels with negative implications seems misguided, in my mind.
Well, the original was clear enough to anyone who believes that the reasons given for this war are probably spurious too. If the war is enacted for the wrong reasons then corresponding enforcement of these ideals and actions through over-patriotism is "wrong" and therefore ironic in the way described. See later for back up for this claim (about which we centrally disagree and don't have enough facts to convince each other - but let's use what little we have. Absence of concrete knowledge is another vital tool in the manipulative-politican's "arsenal")
Originally Posted by Yoda
Why? You don't think the ideology that would have us leave Hussein in power indicates a certain wishful thinking, or naivete, that is ultimately only protected by the fact that others do not share those traits? You don't think a number of Americans who opposed this action did so because it was easier to shut their eyes to the actions being committed over there, focusing instead on our petty domestic concerns?
I do think that pure-pascifists are daft to be honest (but i don't think suddenly calling all internal politics petty is a very balanced argument - again another "side-effect" of war is to focus attention else-where. Traditional sleight-of-hand. Not always deliberately, but part of the issue here.)
As i've said, war can be an inevitable representation of inevitable power struggles etc. Let's do everything we can to avoid things getting to that point. Not out of fear, but out of bravery and conviction that some things can be done better (i see from the Evolution2 thread that you believe in the idea of controlling our base "chemical" natures - so this idea should appeal to you
)
Originally Posted by Yoda
Supporting without asking questions is bad, but so is condemning without having answers. And, as you well know, there are still a number of unresolved matters.
This will always be the case. Personally i don't plan on waiting 50 years for the official secrets act to reveal, yet again, that everyone was lying thru their teeth
I don't want to hear some other Kissinger mumble about how they don't re-call. So unsatisfying to address current actions 50 years down the line don't you think?
However, there is strong evidence of deception, which i will get to.
Originally Posted by Yoda
I have read some. If nothing else, they certainly show how illiterate we as a people are today in comparison to our early 20th century counterparts. That said, the fact that someone might be somewhat burnt out on pride for their country after a long, difficult war isn't much of a reason to condemn the notion.
Merely the other side of the "coin" (as Bealey would have it). Will you feel guilty for such sentiments if it is proved demonstrably that our politicans have manipulated us and that the reasons for going to war were far more nefarious than those stated? You're a good man, i suspect you would. Please try to see that it is the "with-me-or-against-me" polarisations and simplifications that make that quote so infuriating and blinkard. You can't just dedicate a country to war and then say "anything that goes wrong doesn't exist. Or at least, don't mention it". Sounds a bit communist-state-ish doesn't it? Doesn't sound like free speech at any rate
Originally Posted by Yoda
Both overzealous patriotism and naive pacifism have a number of marks in the "wasteful stupidities" column. I stand by the quote.
Agreed. But personally i don't feel i am representing naive pacifism. I would like to think i represent partially informed, partially-historically-educated, partially-politically-aware, realistic pascifism. So let's get on with the nitty gritty about why i've made the choice of standpoint that i have (or, to be fair, why i made and have continued supporting my predictions as they all seem to be coming true, no matter how much i try to read both sides)
Originally Posted by Yoda
So, you're telling me that being a demonstratable threat to the US or Britain is the only justifiable reason either would have for taking action against them?
Oh dear, Steve made this jump too. I'll answer in the same way. No! That is not in any way what i'm saying. I am saying (a) it was suggested to us, deceptively, by our leaders that this was the case to increase support for war. And (b) this type of pre-emptive action damages the only genuine mechanism we have for stopping expantionist invasions i.e. th UN (the only practical way of stopping a crime we have at the moment is to address it heavily after it happens. If you want to predict a crime, you have to have incredibly strong evidence, of not only how the person/country was, but how it is now and the changes it is going through. My assertion is that we didn't. If they had clear reasons for going they could of told us by now. They can't coz they don't, in my opinon.)
I believe i'm being practical in this. If you want to get rid of saddam, you wait til he attacks someone again (as you seem convinced he was going to. Where was he going to get the funds for this/the nescessary re-building etc? He was pretty strapped for cash as i understand it)
Hence we learn from wars of the past, re-act quickly when nescessary (and despite your claim otherwise in the second little post, the UN has demonstrably done this), and also have a much better chance of locally-supported regime change (the only type that can work without just becoming another oligarchy/repressive state etc)
Originally Posted by Yoda
If you want some irony, here it is for you: you imply that we've no reason to invade Iraq, seeing as how they have no means of delivery for any weapons they might have...yet at the same time, the attacks of 2 years ago, as you'll surely remember, did not require any such means. Delivery is clearly of secondary importance.
Oh PLEASE!. Show me the connections between Saddam and Al Queda!!!! I assume that's what you're talking about. Where are the connections?? That is such a flimsy argument. American troops on the ground weren't discouraged from believing this. Outrageous! Now that certainly fits the term "propoganda".
Tell me what Saddam would have gained from this (yes he hates america, for not helping him build his ego-empire, after helping him and others over-throw the last/only internally-selected governing body in Iraq. But that's not enough. He's demonstrably secular, except in times of desperation. He has no interest in fatwas/religious-extremism except for internal control, i suspect. He funds palestinians apparently, but that's just him trying to keep a hold on that region/un-balance his potential enemies nearby. What would he gain from angering the States like that?)
Are you just going to rely on a string of unsubstantiated accusations from politicans who have shown themselves to lie in public for their own interests? TELL ME WHY SADDAM AND AL QAEDA (sp) ARE CONNECTED!!!
And how has invading lessened this threat then? If you believe this threat can eminate from Iraq, how does going in solve the problem? It just angers them more surely! It just makes them more desperate and gives them more reason to strike out. [just adding to the list of why-yanks-are-unpopular-abroad. There's more "motivations" on the "iffy" list i believe.]
They've got enough to worry about with all the "depleted uranium" tested out in the last war causing cancer and preparing to sit around for the next million years or so. Saddam's never going to convince "educated" people to fly out on suicide missions (they're too busy mopping up all the problems, constantly), and anyone else would get spotted most likely - i.e. how did they get the money for all the travelling etc. Alright, these are the suppositions of an angry man. But PLEASE! Your argument concerning this is very close to non-sensical.
Originally Posted by Yoda
Tell me this: do you believe Saddam has failed to attack us out of altruism, or incapability? Moreover, do you deny that he was in the process of (or attempting to) develop said capability?
I don't deny that he would like to if it could establish him as an untouchable power (like N Korea etc apparently is. i.e. sufficiently powerful that others like america etc have to negotiate with them rather than incinerate them
)
What i deny is that he had acheived a significant re-build. Again, uncertainty cuts both ways, and there was/is no way for the inspectors to declare absolutely that all weapons had been controlled and manufacture impeeded or stopped. Some pointers for why he probably hadn't re-built:
-the trade embargo means he MUST have been strapped for cash. It would have been difficult to get operations up to past levels, especially with the inspectors on his back constantly. But i'm sure he tried.
-Dr David Kelly (the bioweapons expert apparently harried into suicide by all the power-politics and tangible lying going on. A man who loved scientific truth but who could extend his love to cover the applications us foolish humans put them to - as so many others can't seem to do. He was passionate about not seeing the thing he loved used for terrorisation etc etc) He and other esteemed members had become as convinced as they could be that the bioweapon program had been muzzled and was not getting back on its feet. This is the man who managed to get Saddam to admit to 4 years of lying about his bio program. This is the man who actually got petrified scientists to talk. This is the man Saddam persecuted and desperately wanted removed from the country, above all the other inspectors. Why do you think that was? Coz he was damn good at his job)
-as suggested above, if he HAD rebuilt, it seems more likely he would have used the weapons as a bargaining tool to insure his entry into the economics/political world
So, i don't deny he wanted to, i just deny that had acheived it, and indeed that we had any proof that he had. What's he gonna do? Send some guy out with some imaginary-Niger-uranium under his coat?
Originally Posted by Yoda
Seems like some mistakes were made, yes. This should hardly come as a shock to anyone, however, unless the mistakes were the pillar on which the action stood; which I don't believe they were.
Originally Posted by Yoda
You'll have to be a lot more specific than "our leaders," though no matter who you list, I'm rather undecided on the issue. As you've surely noticed, there seems to be some disagreement about just who knew what, and when.
My argument is:
-If they had a solid "pillar" of evidence, why hasn't it lead to finds?
-we should be surprised by multiple mistakes and low-quality in "intelligence" and its representation when it is the
only reason given for war.
-why would politicans bang on about things they knew to be false unless to cover for the flimsiness of most of their rationalisations for war. (Niger - bush and friends knew man. Either that or he's part of the decision making process without knowing the facts. That doesn't inspire confidence. Not to mention the bio-trucks, which blair certainly kept pushing as such after he knew they weren't, and my memories of the chronology are that Bush carried on stating that after blair had fallen silent. Again, not good. Our "suicide" friend had to risk his neck again to make sure the public knew and wasn't mislead again. He's dead. Let's hope there are some more heroes out there) (all hard to prove, but plenty of reason to be suspicious. Do more experts need to be hounded to death before "fact" triumphs over "spin"?)
Originally Posted by Yoda
Far too soon to say, but it's hardly an absurd notion. Self-preservation can outweigh vengeance.
Oh come on. Suicide bombing is only prevelant in desperate and destroyed societies (admittadly Muslim countries normally). Super-power interference in afghanistan and "palestine" societies have caused the desperation which we see inacted when a mother/father sends their son/daughter to die. It is desperation and degradation that lead to extremism seizing control of a country. If the iraqis were going to bomb anyone it would be their own insane leader. I really don't think there'd be any reason for the average iraqi to suicide-attack america (well, at least, there wasn't).
Self-preservation outweighs vengance in palesteine, but they have been pushed so far that even "nescessity" has been redefined. If this is your dream result for iraq, well then, the dream is coming true even as we speak. Maybe the UN'll come in and pick up the pieces - telling you off for biting off more than you can chew? (and i do say "you" - the US. The brits are just there as an attempted placation of world-opinion for these outrageous actions. And of course that doesn't work. We just get dragged along with you when-ever we try and bridge the europe-US divide etc or try to slow you down thru our "special relationship". I doubt you'd claim that the brits were het up about iraq and wanted to invade. We wnt to make you guys look less unilateral, arrogant and misguided. I know these words will seem bitter, "ungrateful", misguided, hateful and many other things to many americans reading this, but unfortunately you need to know what the world thinks of you sometimes. And, just occasionally, the world can be right you know. I'm not claiming to speak for all of it, but even amongst the privaliged international learners that i teach, i find the sentiments i am expressing reflected)
Trust me, these actions are not making any friends and have almost certainly increased the chance of britain and the US being on the receiving end of "terrorist" attacks. You can't punch a made-up-generalisation in the mouth. So sorry. Isn't life frustrating
Ahhh, the end (until you reply
)