hell bent on war
Saddam etc.
Linda --
I think the semantic difference between "invasion" & "terrorism" is interesting, but somewhat beside the point. But since you asked, I'd call an "invasion" a coordinated act with a long-term goal, on the part of a government or some other occupying military force, to actually overrun and take over the governance of another country or society. By that definition, 9/11 wasn't technically an "invasion." But so what? It was an unspeakably horrible crime against humanity, and the U.S. had every right to strike back militarily against its perpetrators (even though I was very unsure that the way they did so, by bombing the people of Afghanistan, was the right way to go about it.)
But there has simply been no actual evidence of any connection between that event and Saddam. You, I, or anyone might have strong "feelings" that a man like Saddam, consumed with hatred and ready to commit atrocities in the name of that hatred, must in fact have had something to do with it. But "feelings" aren't justification for a minor traffic ticket, let alone a massive military invasion of another's country.
Certainly there's been no demonstrable evidence of Al Queda aligning itself with Iraq. Osama Bin Laden has given sermons in which he's castigated Saddam as a secularist heretic, right up there on his hit list along with other Great Satans like the U.S. As far as I know, the only Arab country that has been shown to have actively supported Osama is Saudi Arabia --a U.S. ally because of the oil connection.
But then, of course, Osama, as well, was originally funded, supported --and, unless I'm mistaken, even armed-- by the U.S. under the auspices of the CIA, simply because he was anti-Soviet at the time.
Re-reading my final paragraph, Linda, I'm not sure what it is about it that you find so disturbing. Nowhere in it do I defend any of the atrocities of Al Queda, Saddam, or anyone else. In fact, just above I make it clear that I consider Saddam a murderous monster, and I want very much to see Saddam deposed and brought to justice.
My point, however, is that history shows us conclusively that the U.S. govt. and the corporations for which it works do NOT act in the interest of liberating oppressed people. And, although I understand the sentiment you invoke when you say that the attack on Iraq represents U.S. "self-defense," I simply cannot endorse a pre-emptive strike as a form of defending oneself. As I mentioned, manymanymany countries have the arms and the poltical ideology to make them a potential threat to others (e.g., India and Pakistan, etc.) But this does not justfiy anyone's invading those countries. Dealing with threats of that nature is, in fact, what diplomacy is for.
I also don't think, as Paula and others have implied, that the U.S. government has a "hidden" agenda at all. It's right out there in plain sight: paving the way for corporate domination throughout as much of the world as possible, by any means necessary. The evidence is overwhelming: walking out on the Kyoto conference, thumbing their nose at the establishment of a World Court, supporting "pro-western" (read: "pro-corporate") tyrants and dictators the world over, and on and on and on. The fact that an egregious tyrant like Saddam can serve as a convenient poster boy to justify these actions is simply a stroke of good luck for them. As I said, if he weren't there, they'd either have to invent someone like him or use other, more clandestine methods (e.g., covert CIA operations, assassinations of democratically elected leaders like Allende in Chile, etc.) to achieve their ends.
Look at Southeast Asia, where all those sweatshops exist for the profit of western corporations. Do you honestly think that this has not been the intentional agenda of U.S. operations in Vietnam, their support of the Suharto regime, and other activities in that part of the world, for decades?
I think that too many folks who have come to endorse the Iraqi invasion have been hoodwinked by what might be called a false syllogism: Saddam is evil; therefore, anyone who opposes him is good; thus, the U.S. corporate/government/military alliance is good. Unfortunately --and tragically-- I can't buy into that. I fear that this is a war in which, ultimately, there are no "good guys" -- merely two sides led by opportunistic leaders and ruling parties/classes, consumed with murderous ambition, each using the other as a convenient whipping boy for its own unsavory and horrifyingly dangerous agenda.
Shalom
Salaam
David
I think the semantic difference between "invasion" & "terrorism" is interesting, but somewhat beside the point. But since you asked, I'd call an "invasion" a coordinated act with a long-term goal, on the part of a government or some other occupying military force, to actually overrun and take over the governance of another country or society. By that definition, 9/11 wasn't technically an "invasion." But so what? It was an unspeakably horrible crime against humanity, and the U.S. had every right to strike back militarily against its perpetrators (even though I was very unsure that the way they did so, by bombing the people of Afghanistan, was the right way to go about it.)
But there has simply been no actual evidence of any connection between that event and Saddam. You, I, or anyone might have strong "feelings" that a man like Saddam, consumed with hatred and ready to commit atrocities in the name of that hatred, must in fact have had something to do with it. But "feelings" aren't justification for a minor traffic ticket, let alone a massive military invasion of another's country.
Certainly there's been no demonstrable evidence of Al Queda aligning itself with Iraq. Osama Bin Laden has given sermons in which he's castigated Saddam as a secularist heretic, right up there on his hit list along with other Great Satans like the U.S. As far as I know, the only Arab country that has been shown to have actively supported Osama is Saudi Arabia --a U.S. ally because of the oil connection.
But then, of course, Osama, as well, was originally funded, supported --and, unless I'm mistaken, even armed-- by the U.S. under the auspices of the CIA, simply because he was anti-Soviet at the time.
Re-reading my final paragraph, Linda, I'm not sure what it is about it that you find so disturbing. Nowhere in it do I defend any of the atrocities of Al Queda, Saddam, or anyone else. In fact, just above I make it clear that I consider Saddam a murderous monster, and I want very much to see Saddam deposed and brought to justice.
My point, however, is that history shows us conclusively that the U.S. govt. and the corporations for which it works do NOT act in the interest of liberating oppressed people. And, although I understand the sentiment you invoke when you say that the attack on Iraq represents U.S. "self-defense," I simply cannot endorse a pre-emptive strike as a form of defending oneself. As I mentioned, manymanymany countries have the arms and the poltical ideology to make them a potential threat to others (e.g., India and Pakistan, etc.) But this does not justfiy anyone's invading those countries. Dealing with threats of that nature is, in fact, what diplomacy is for.
I also don't think, as Paula and others have implied, that the U.S. government has a "hidden" agenda at all. It's right out there in plain sight: paving the way for corporate domination throughout as much of the world as possible, by any means necessary. The evidence is overwhelming: walking out on the Kyoto conference, thumbing their nose at the establishment of a World Court, supporting "pro-western" (read: "pro-corporate") tyrants and dictators the world over, and on and on and on. The fact that an egregious tyrant like Saddam can serve as a convenient poster boy to justify these actions is simply a stroke of good luck for them. As I said, if he weren't there, they'd either have to invent someone like him or use other, more clandestine methods (e.g., covert CIA operations, assassinations of democratically elected leaders like Allende in Chile, etc.) to achieve their ends.
Look at Southeast Asia, where all those sweatshops exist for the profit of western corporations. Do you honestly think that this has not been the intentional agenda of U.S. operations in Vietnam, their support of the Suharto regime, and other activities in that part of the world, for decades?
I think that too many folks who have come to endorse the Iraqi invasion have been hoodwinked by what might be called a false syllogism: Saddam is evil; therefore, anyone who opposes him is good; thus, the U.S. corporate/government/military alliance is good. Unfortunately --and tragically-- I can't buy into that. I fear that this is a war in which, ultimately, there are no "good guys" -- merely two sides led by opportunistic leaders and ruling parties/classes, consumed with murderous ambition, each using the other as a convenient whipping boy for its own unsavory and horrifyingly dangerous agenda.
Shalom
Salaam
David
"Nothing is said that is not sung."
- tom.d.stiller
- Posts: 1213
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 8:18 am
- Location: ... between the lines ...
- Contact:
David,
true, true, true. I can agree to most of what you said.
But there are two points, I'd like to clarify a bit - from my point of view:
1. I still can detect an important difference between the US and for example Saddam.
2. Saddam is a criminal. Saddam is - in the moral and political sense - bad. But I strongly reject the term "evil". "Evil" is definitely a religious category, and mixing up politics and religion is the most dangerous mistake that can be made. If we do not keep our religious categories out of politics we degrade ourselves to the same fundamentalism that drives some terrorists to their horrible deeds.
When I look closely at the most terrifying conflicts involving terrorists all over the world (Ireland, Palestine, to name but two besides the Al Qaida movement) I always find economic interests at the root of the conflict, but religious fundamentalism at the root of the terrorism.
Tom
true, true, true. I can agree to most of what you said.
But there are two points, I'd like to clarify a bit - from my point of view:
1. I still can detect an important difference between the US and for example Saddam.
2. Saddam is a criminal. Saddam is - in the moral and political sense - bad. But I strongly reject the term "evil". "Evil" is definitely a religious category, and mixing up politics and religion is the most dangerous mistake that can be made. If we do not keep our religious categories out of politics we degrade ourselves to the same fundamentalism that drives some terrorists to their horrible deeds.
When I look closely at the most terrifying conflicts involving terrorists all over the world (Ireland, Palestine, to name but two besides the Al Qaida movement) I always find economic interests at the root of the conflict, but religious fundamentalism at the root of the terrorism.
Tom
Live/Evil
I don't like the use of the word "evil" to label people in this kind of context either. I haven't taken the time to re-read everything I wrote, but if I slipped into into the use of that term in this way I apologize, and I appreciate your pointing that out. I was very unhappy when I first heard Bush use the term, and I remain steadfastly opposed to it as a political rhetorical device. I also agree wholeheartedly that fundamentalism is at the root of modern-day terrorism (and, for that matter, much war)
There are certainly evil ACTS, however, and I don't think it's wrong to label them as such.
And if I didn't make it clear before, I will now: I definitely agree --indeed, it goes almost without saying!-- that there are massive differences between Saddam's regime & the U.S., especially in terms of current domestic policy/activities. We're far from the perfect democracy that some ideologues would suggest we are, but we're definitely further along the way toward that golden goal, at least in some ways, than many other countries are. I revere our Declaration of Independence and --for all its flaws and imperfections-- our Constitution, as documents of genius and liberatory spirit.
Where I get cranky, though, is when I hear folks criticize dissidents with statements like, "If this were Iraq, you'd be in jail right now for your dissention" or "Maybe you'd rather live under the Taliban" -- analogous to the old Cold War/'60s-era bromide, "If ya don't like it here, then move to Russia!" I've always wondered at folks who argue that "we" are doing just fine, as long as we're better than the absolute worst examples we could be compared to. I'd prefer to set our sights as high as possible, rather than as low as possible.
I heard a magnificent quote from a member of Vietnam Veterans Against The War at a peace rally not long ago: "It takes more than a gun to make a man; it takes more than a salute to make a patriot; it takes more than a flag to show you love your country!"
In that spirit, I continue to insist that the dissident, rather than the follower of orders, is often the true patriot.
David
There are certainly evil ACTS, however, and I don't think it's wrong to label them as such.
And if I didn't make it clear before, I will now: I definitely agree --indeed, it goes almost without saying!-- that there are massive differences between Saddam's regime & the U.S., especially in terms of current domestic policy/activities. We're far from the perfect democracy that some ideologues would suggest we are, but we're definitely further along the way toward that golden goal, at least in some ways, than many other countries are. I revere our Declaration of Independence and --for all its flaws and imperfections-- our Constitution, as documents of genius and liberatory spirit.
Where I get cranky, though, is when I hear folks criticize dissidents with statements like, "If this were Iraq, you'd be in jail right now for your dissention" or "Maybe you'd rather live under the Taliban" -- analogous to the old Cold War/'60s-era bromide, "If ya don't like it here, then move to Russia!" I've always wondered at folks who argue that "we" are doing just fine, as long as we're better than the absolute worst examples we could be compared to. I'd prefer to set our sights as high as possible, rather than as low as possible.
I heard a magnificent quote from a member of Vietnam Veterans Against The War at a peace rally not long ago: "It takes more than a gun to make a man; it takes more than a salute to make a patriot; it takes more than a flag to show you love your country!"
In that spirit, I continue to insist that the dissident, rather than the follower of orders, is often the true patriot.
David
"Nothing is said that is not sung."
- tom.d.stiller
- Posts: 1213
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 8:18 am
- Location: ... between the lines ...
- Contact:
David,
I heartily agree. Everything that you said is true. There are evil ACTS, and 9/11 certainly was one. (Most evil acts, by the way, root in a strong belief to be one of God's preferred tools...)
Unfortunately, nowadays, in this thread, almost nothing goes without saying, when you belong to those who publicly oppose this administration.
Qui non est mecum contra me est, he who is not with me is against me, they seem to think, and consequently opposition is - in a democracy - looked on as enmity, betrayal, or worse.
But you rightly pointed out "that that the dissident, rather than the follower of orders, is often the true patriot".
I want to remind our critics of a very interesting book by one Great American that can be read on http://eserver.org/thoreau/civil.html
Tom
I heartily agree. Everything that you said is true. There are evil ACTS, and 9/11 certainly was one. (Most evil acts, by the way, root in a strong belief to be one of God's preferred tools...)
Unfortunately, nowadays, in this thread, almost nothing goes without saying, when you belong to those who publicly oppose this administration.
Qui non est mecum contra me est, he who is not with me is against me, they seem to think, and consequently opposition is - in a democracy - looked on as enmity, betrayal, or worse.
But you rightly pointed out "that that the dissident, rather than the follower of orders, is often the true patriot".
I want to remind our critics of a very interesting book by one Great American that can be read on http://eserver.org/thoreau/civil.html
Tom
David you say semantic difference between invasion and terrorism is interesting but somewhat beside the point. Beside the point? You continue wiht what you call an invasion. The definition in my dictionary is: The act or fact of invading: entering by force or as an enemy attack. What part of Sept. 11 does not fit that definition? Also what part of your definition does not fit terrorism? The wearing of a military uniform?
If the evidence is not there that Saddam held a big part in Sept 11 and other terrorist activity, will totally surprise me.
Your last paragraph being disturbing David is your prediction, and how firmly you grab the opportunity with your prediction to place blame on the US solely for what you believe is going to happen because of this war. You definitely have a belief about this war that I find disturbing.
As for Tom and your opinion of religion I am not going there on this board unless it gets worse, but do not agree.
If the evidence is not there that Saddam held a big part in Sept 11 and other terrorist activity, will totally surprise me.
Your last paragraph being disturbing David is your prediction, and how firmly you grab the opportunity with your prediction to place blame on the US solely for what you believe is going to happen because of this war. You definitely have a belief about this war that I find disturbing.
As for Tom and your opinion of religion I am not going there on this board unless it gets worse, but do not agree.
Linda
- tom.d.stiller
- Posts: 1213
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 8:18 am
- Location: ... between the lines ...
- Contact:
Linda,
I hold a very high opinion of religion. I respect everybody's faith, and encourage the study of the Bible as well as the study of the Quran and the Holy Books of other religions.
Fundamentalism, on the other hand, tends to lead one's thoughts in a very dangerous direction, namely that the own religion is superior to others, and those that do not shared will have to be either converted or eradicated.
Mark: I do not say that all fundamentalists go this way. But fundamentalism is a sine qua non for it.
I don't want to convince you, by the way. And I can promise that it's not getting "worse". This was just for the purpose of clarification, just to declare that I am in no way anti-religious.
Tom
I hold a very high opinion of religion. I respect everybody's faith, and encourage the study of the Bible as well as the study of the Quran and the Holy Books of other religions.
Fundamentalism, on the other hand, tends to lead one's thoughts in a very dangerous direction, namely that the own religion is superior to others, and those that do not shared will have to be either converted or eradicated.
Mark: I do not say that all fundamentalists go this way. But fundamentalism is a sine qua non for it.
I don't want to convince you, by the way. And I can promise that it's not getting "worse". This was just for the purpose of clarification, just to declare that I am in no way anti-religious.
Tom
-
- Posts: 181
- Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 10:58 pm
- Location: Sault Ste Marie, Canada
Linda,
I do not find it too hard to believe that you cannot believe tha facts regarding Saddam and terrorism. From your comments earlier in this thread where you state that you will accept the word of a veteran as opposed to the reporting of International Journalist, politacal analysts, etc says lots. also these latest comments made by you in recent posts:
One needs to be critical and analyze this information: seek out analysis from those who are knowledable and informed enough to clarify the double speak of politicians/spokespeople and who are aware of the politics/political situations in the countries and regions concerned.
I am going to provide a few more links here for you and the others here to peruse. I will await patiently your denigration of these sources.
Mar. 23, 2003. 02:05 PM
Deconstructing Dick Cheney
DAVID OLIVE
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Conten ... 5779766711
Bush never wavered on Iraq
He set his sights on Saddam after 9-11, didn't looked back
By Susan Page / USA TODAY
http://www.detnews.com/2003/nation/0303 ... 116106.htm
Mar. 23, 2003. 08:36 AM
Standards of a 'just war' are not met this time
TOM HARPUR
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Conten ... 5779766539[/quote]
I do not find it too hard to believe that you cannot believe tha facts regarding Saddam and terrorism. From your comments earlier in this thread where you state that you will accept the word of a veteran as opposed to the reporting of International Journalist, politacal analysts, etc says lots. also these latest comments made by you in recent posts:
andI might suggest you turn your television back on Lizzytysh or at least listen to the briefing by our Generals, and our leaders first hand and decide for yourself, I never like getting information second hand. I have to say I am impressed by them standing in front of the media anwering all kinds of questions fired at them from reporters from all around the world. And I am so impressed at what seems to me to be genuine honesty. Linda
It seems that your valued sources are your leaders and the persons conducting the battle. These are the very sources you should be questioning and being critical of. What they say is not necessarily ' all the facts'. And it certainly isn't first hand news. It has been filtered down and prepared like all the other information you will receive from many sources.On Good Morning America a news person interviewed a General from your armed services Paula, and I am just so impressed with the way he aswered questions and conducted himself. As all our military people do that I have had the chance to listen to. We could learn a lot from them. My husband believes that everyone should serve in the service of their country, at least for two years. I have never agreed with him. Until now. In watching generals being interviewed by reporters, on down to the soldier in the field. These are people of honor and integrity it shows in the way they conduct themselves. They treat people with the utmost respect even if they do not agree with them.
One needs to be critical and analyze this information: seek out analysis from those who are knowledable and informed enough to clarify the double speak of politicians/spokespeople and who are aware of the politics/political situations in the countries and regions concerned.
I am going to provide a few more links here for you and the others here to peruse. I will await patiently your denigration of these sources.
Mar. 23, 2003. 02:05 PM
Deconstructing Dick Cheney
DAVID OLIVE
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Conten ... 5779766711
Bush never wavered on Iraq
He set his sights on Saddam after 9-11, didn't looked back
By Susan Page / USA TODAY
http://www.detnews.com/2003/nation/0303 ... 116106.htm
Mar. 23, 2003. 08:36 AM
Standards of a 'just war' are not met this time
TOM HARPUR
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Conten ... 5779766539[/quote]
-
- Posts: 181
- Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2002 10:58 pm
- Location: Sault Ste Marie, Canada
Here's another site that I suggest those viewing this thread should check out. It is a Documentary call 'A Generation of Hate' that I saw on CBC News last eveing.
http://www.cbc.ca/witness/iraq/index.html
I especially suggest you check out the links to the Iraqi Stories and READ them.Filmmaker Shelley Saywell began work on "Generation of Hate" shortly after the September 11th attacks. "We wanted to do a film about the future wars that are being created in the hearts of young children" says Saywell. "It began well before there was talk of an Iraqi invasion."
http://www.cbc.ca/witness/iraq/index.html
Dear Paula ~
I'm really surprized that you, as well, are missing the many times and distinctions between who and what I oppose.
I also agree that their being paraded on TV could be their salvation. I also noted the upsides of that parading, from several perspectives. Your comment here would be better directed at those decrying the parade. I'm just not as certain as you are that it will go that way.
It would depend on which person[s] I was in Iraq, as to how I wanted things to remain. If I were a starving one, I would hope that the neighbouring countries would come to my aid, rather than sit by. I would hope for many things. As a person living in the United States, I would hope that the administration would have concern for people who are dying for lack of medical care that they cannot afford; for "hate crimes" to not be continuing; for blacks not to suffer the injustices that they have, including electrocution because our ongoing prejudices extend to the court and judicial systems. I would hope for the United States to reach out to other countries with true humanitarian concerns, rather than pretending that they are G..d and can solve the world's problems, while they turn a blind eye to those at home, while increasing their own economic wealth [amassed for themselves, rather than spent on those in need at home] and taking over countries worldwide for their own economic gain. As I said, the peace and liberation that comes for those who survive this war in Iraq will be a good thing, but merely a collateral benefit of the U.S. government's true intention. I've also never said I feel Saddam is a good person, nor that I want his people to suffer. However, the sanctions the U.S. imposed and has maintained for years because Saddam "fell out of favour".....[Stop, Elizabeth] good heavens, do I have to keep repeating everything?
I'm really surprized that you, as well, are missing the many times and distinctions between who and what I oppose.
I also agree that their being paraded on TV could be their salvation. I also noted the upsides of that parading, from several perspectives. Your comment here would be better directed at those decrying the parade. I'm just not as certain as you are that it will go that way.
This is correct.I don't understand your fanatical tirade against the USA. You are
American and I know you are anti war as are a lot of people, yet you
seem to think the whole of the USA government has a hidden agenda.
Yes, of course, it would be construed that way. This tends to be a "flag-waving" country [see David's post regarding the sign of one of the veterans]. Fortunately, I try to stay out of bars.I don't know if your opinions are indicative of American people
generally but I wonder if you stood up in, say, a bar and stated your
opinions it could be construed as "batting for the other side".
This is the one I refuse to revisit [italics mine to emphasize what you need to look for in all of my previous postings].You might not like the war but I don't think the answer is to denigrate the people who, whether you like it or not, are fighting for our freedom to state the opinions we have stated without fear of retribution or death.
It would depend on which person[s] I was in Iraq, as to how I wanted things to remain. If I were a starving one, I would hope that the neighbouring countries would come to my aid, rather than sit by. I would hope for many things. As a person living in the United States, I would hope that the administration would have concern for people who are dying for lack of medical care that they cannot afford; for "hate crimes" to not be continuing; for blacks not to suffer the injustices that they have, including electrocution because our ongoing prejudices extend to the court and judicial systems. I would hope for the United States to reach out to other countries with true humanitarian concerns, rather than pretending that they are G..d and can solve the world's problems, while they turn a blind eye to those at home, while increasing their own economic wealth [amassed for themselves, rather than spent on those in need at home] and taking over countries worldwide for their own economic gain. As I said, the peace and liberation that comes for those who survive this war in Iraq will be a good thing, but merely a collateral benefit of the U.S. government's true intention. I've also never said I feel Saddam is a good person, nor that I want his people to suffer. However, the sanctions the U.S. imposed and has maintained for years because Saddam "fell out of favour".....[Stop, Elizabeth] good heavens, do I have to keep repeating everything?
David - as I said I am naive I am not completely stupid. I am well aware oil plays a huge part in this war. The might of the free world would not come crashing down to help an improvised third war country with no tangible assets. However I get the impression you believe (and please correct me if I am wrong) that the SOLE purpose of this war is oil based. I don't believe that I think the MAIN purpose is the oil and secondary to that is getting rid of a despot and making that part of the world a little less volatile.
I will carry this on in a sec my computer keeps crashing so I will submit this and carry on
I will carry this on in a sec my computer keeps crashing so I will submit this and carry on
Lizzie I think my point concerning what you would do if you were an Iraqi you answered on the basis of an American with free speech and free rein to travel where you wanted and when. They do not have that option.
In a perfect world food and aid would come to those who needed it and the leaders of that land would be glad to let their citizens have the aid. Iraq should not be a poor country it is oil rich. It has a leader who is bleeding the country dry.
My point to Liz was the impression I was getting from her posting was anti american anti the heart and soul of America. It could be a cultural thing. Maybe the USA present government is as corrupt as you say it is. I don't know. I don't feel that way about our government.
In a perfect world food and aid would come to those who needed it and the leaders of that land would be glad to let their citizens have the aid. Iraq should not be a poor country it is oil rich. It has a leader who is bleeding the country dry.
My point to Liz was the impression I was getting from her posting was anti american anti the heart and soul of America. It could be a cultural thing. Maybe the USA present government is as corrupt as you say it is. I don't know. I don't feel that way about our government.
Terrorism etc.
Linda --
Maybe I don't understand your question about "terrorism" vs. "invasion." As I said: in my opinion, the 9/11 atrocities were terrorism, but because [as far as we know] they were not carried out with the intention of initiating a permanent occupation or of toppling/replacing the govt., I wouldn't call them an "invasion" in the military sense (as was, for instance, the Euorpean conquest of the Americas, the German takeover of Poland and France, the Soviet annexation of the Balkans and Ukraine, etc.) But so what? The 9/11 attacks were, as I've made clear, an egregiously obscene crime against humanity. Is that not enough?
I still think your point about justifying the war because of the possibility of Saddam's being involved in 9/11 is confusing. I simply cannot see a moral justification for invading someone else's country because we'd be "very surprised" if, in the future, they weren't found guilty of something! But let's use your scenario: Despite what we know historically about Osama's hatred of Sadam, and thus the apparent unlikelihood of Al Queda's forging an alliance with him, it is revealed at some time in the future that Saddam did, in fact, have his hands in that particular atrocity. THEN, it will be appropriate (and morally essential) for him to be hauled in front of the World Court (with which the U.S. has refused to participate, but never mind) and prosecuted as rigorously and relentlessly as possible. But that eventuality does NOT justify an "invade first, get evidence later" approach.
As for oil -- in fact, I do not think that oil is the "only" reason the U.S. is invading Iraq (I guess it was Paula, not Linda, who suggested that?) -- However, I also certainly do NOT believe it's out of concern for the Iraqi people, for the resons I've outlined: history has shown that imperial powers simply do not act that way. The U.S. did not, and does not, invade other countries where bloodthirsty tyrants hold sway, if those tyrants are friendly to U.S. govt. and corporate interests. And they did, in fact, actively support Saddam in the early years of his reign, before 1990, during which he invated Iran, used chemical weapons against Iraqi and Irani Kurds, slaughtered Kurds in horrible numbers during the Anfal campaign of terror, etc. During this time --when he was valuable to U.S. interests-- the govt. supported him with economic aid, military intelligence, diplomatic support, and equipment that he blatantly did use in developing his weapons of mass destruction at that time.
Why do I believe the U.S. has gone to war? Three or four basic reasons:
1. Saddam is not in Washington's hip pocket any more, and so must be disposed of.
2. Countries around the world have been mounting resistance to the accumulating damage of international corproate globalization, and this will serve as a warning signal to them that you don't mess with Big Daddy MegBucks-WarGuns and get away with it.
3. To maintain corporate hegemony, social spending and human serivces spending (health, education, etc.) in the U.S. must be curtailed. The American people would not normally accept such a policy, but if they're made to believe that it's the price "we" have to pay for war, the hope is that they'll go along with it.
4. And yes, as the world's 2nd-largest producer of oil, Iraq must be brought to heel and a U.S.-friendly (meaning corporate-friendly) regime must be installed.
Nonetheless, I differ with Paula if she thinks that people with my views (or, from what I've seen, Lizzy's views) are "anti-American" or somehow feel opposed to "the heart and soul of America." To oppose the ruling political and economic elites of a country is NOT to oppose the people of that country, whether the country be Iraq or the U.S. And, in my opinion, the "heart and soul" of what America means (or should mean) is contained in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. I oppose current govt. corporate policies because I believe they betray, rather than live up to or honor, this "heart and soul" of America.
Maybe I don't understand your question about "terrorism" vs. "invasion." As I said: in my opinion, the 9/11 atrocities were terrorism, but because [as far as we know] they were not carried out with the intention of initiating a permanent occupation or of toppling/replacing the govt., I wouldn't call them an "invasion" in the military sense (as was, for instance, the Euorpean conquest of the Americas, the German takeover of Poland and France, the Soviet annexation of the Balkans and Ukraine, etc.) But so what? The 9/11 attacks were, as I've made clear, an egregiously obscene crime against humanity. Is that not enough?
I still think your point about justifying the war because of the possibility of Saddam's being involved in 9/11 is confusing. I simply cannot see a moral justification for invading someone else's country because we'd be "very surprised" if, in the future, they weren't found guilty of something! But let's use your scenario: Despite what we know historically about Osama's hatred of Sadam, and thus the apparent unlikelihood of Al Queda's forging an alliance with him, it is revealed at some time in the future that Saddam did, in fact, have his hands in that particular atrocity. THEN, it will be appropriate (and morally essential) for him to be hauled in front of the World Court (with which the U.S. has refused to participate, but never mind) and prosecuted as rigorously and relentlessly as possible. But that eventuality does NOT justify an "invade first, get evidence later" approach.
As for oil -- in fact, I do not think that oil is the "only" reason the U.S. is invading Iraq (I guess it was Paula, not Linda, who suggested that?) -- However, I also certainly do NOT believe it's out of concern for the Iraqi people, for the resons I've outlined: history has shown that imperial powers simply do not act that way. The U.S. did not, and does not, invade other countries where bloodthirsty tyrants hold sway, if those tyrants are friendly to U.S. govt. and corporate interests. And they did, in fact, actively support Saddam in the early years of his reign, before 1990, during which he invated Iran, used chemical weapons against Iraqi and Irani Kurds, slaughtered Kurds in horrible numbers during the Anfal campaign of terror, etc. During this time --when he was valuable to U.S. interests-- the govt. supported him with economic aid, military intelligence, diplomatic support, and equipment that he blatantly did use in developing his weapons of mass destruction at that time.
Why do I believe the U.S. has gone to war? Three or four basic reasons:
1. Saddam is not in Washington's hip pocket any more, and so must be disposed of.
2. Countries around the world have been mounting resistance to the accumulating damage of international corproate globalization, and this will serve as a warning signal to them that you don't mess with Big Daddy MegBucks-WarGuns and get away with it.
3. To maintain corporate hegemony, social spending and human serivces spending (health, education, etc.) in the U.S. must be curtailed. The American people would not normally accept such a policy, but if they're made to believe that it's the price "we" have to pay for war, the hope is that they'll go along with it.
4. And yes, as the world's 2nd-largest producer of oil, Iraq must be brought to heel and a U.S.-friendly (meaning corporate-friendly) regime must be installed.
Nonetheless, I differ with Paula if she thinks that people with my views (or, from what I've seen, Lizzy's views) are "anti-American" or somehow feel opposed to "the heart and soul of America." To oppose the ruling political and economic elites of a country is NOT to oppose the people of that country, whether the country be Iraq or the U.S. And, in my opinion, the "heart and soul" of what America means (or should mean) is contained in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. I oppose current govt. corporate policies because I believe they betray, rather than live up to or honor, this "heart and soul" of America.
Last edited by David on Fri Mar 28, 2003 1:31 am, edited 4 times in total.
"Nothing is said that is not sung."
Paula ~
When I express myself regarding the U.S. government, I do not automatically scoop up Britain into the process. Because I speak of corruption in the U.S. government and political system, I am not saying that about Britain. Awhile back, Byron asked for feedback from non-Brits regarding some newsworthy events over there, and whether we read or heard about them here. I never answered, but I had not heard of them. However, what has gone on and goes on in England, I have no sense of whatsoever. I've heard him linked in as a croney of Bush's in the derogatory sense, but I've never considered it that. I've never considered their relative culpability to be the same, but I may be wrong. My feeling has been that the U.S. is the leader of the pack, and for whatever monetary, etc. reasons, Britain is going along. I don't know what all may be behind that. Likewise, with Australia. I think it's good that you are proud of your government, and I wish I could say the same. I felt that way once. I've seen, read, and experienced too much since then.....as they say "you can never go home again" and that is a sad reality, a sad loss.
~ Elizabeth
When I express myself regarding the U.S. government, I do not automatically scoop up Britain into the process. Because I speak of corruption in the U.S. government and political system, I am not saying that about Britain. Awhile back, Byron asked for feedback from non-Brits regarding some newsworthy events over there, and whether we read or heard about them here. I never answered, but I had not heard of them. However, what has gone on and goes on in England, I have no sense of whatsoever. I've heard him linked in as a croney of Bush's in the derogatory sense, but I've never considered it that. I've never considered their relative culpability to be the same, but I may be wrong. My feeling has been that the U.S. is the leader of the pack, and for whatever monetary, etc. reasons, Britain is going along. I don't know what all may be behind that. Likewise, with Australia. I think it's good that you are proud of your government, and I wish I could say the same. I felt that way once. I've seen, read, and experienced too much since then.....as they say "you can never go home again" and that is a sad reality, a sad loss.
~ Elizabeth