Are the American People Insane?

Remove all ads!

This seems to me the more appropriate topic.

That so many are lining up to support a war that has absolutely no foundation in reason amazes me.

That we are about to change US world policy by becoming the empire that patrols the world, attacking whom ever we feel we don't like for personal reasons seems insane to me.

The lack of political or idealogical consistency should be a big warning sign, but it fails to be recognized by many.

That is my opinion.

Please elaborate on yours.

[ September 30, 2002, 14:23: Message edited by: Blackthorne TA ]

 

With all due respect, I think you continue to skirt the fact that the current regime in Iraq rules via murder and torture. That the current regime is one built upon genocide. That the use of weapons of mass destruction is a tool of that government, one that has been used on the Kurds to the North.

You quickly gloss this over in your other post, ignoring the 100,000 murdered in the Anfal, in a rush to attribute nefarious motives to the American leadership.

You ignore my point of: who cares what Bush's motives are? Even if they are bad, a regime which has committed genocide deserves to be toppled, just like we did in Kosovo. You didn't answer my question of how what Hussein is doing is any less deserving of action than what occurred in Kosovo, where the world demanded action.

I think you are resorting to name calling. And I don't think that is particularly reasonable on YOUR part.

In the other thread I thought I made an argument clear, and left links should you choose to go to independent sites to see what has been occurring. You ignore the arguments and essentially call anyone who disagrees with you unreasonable (not far off from calling me stupid.) All the while, I fail to see you respond to how the murder of 100,000 isn't sufficient to seek a regime change. I keep hammering that home for a reason.

I've agonized over this. I've traveled many places in this world, and while I haven't been to Iraq the time I spent in Israel, Turkey, and Egypt was wonderful. I found most of the people there to be wonderful and I am sure that the people of Iraq are the same. I think you believe any who disagree with you are simply warmongers who want blood without thought. I think I am irritated at being continuously branded as violent and bloodthirsty because I think that what I truly believe to be a despicable regime, which I have supported with independent facts elsewhere, needs to be ended.

I think you are being close minded. I think that this didn't need a new thread.

That is my opinion.

 

I think the argument is not so much here whether we'd like to see Saddam Hussein overthrown or not; he just doesn't have that many members of his fan club. The real issue here is whether the US has the right to attack a sovereign country just because it's ruled by a psychopathic dictator.

I can see the UN doing this, possibly. But the US alone? What does that mean, exactly? What's the next step, can the US now perform unprovoked attacks on any country that doesn't appeal to the american lifestyle?

We cannot allow one country to police another country. International politics are messy at best right now, but if the world's richest country, the world's largest democracy, if that country starts ignoring the basics of the UN, we will have anarchy. The law of the jungle, and noone wants that, believe me. Not even the US.

 

I would have to disagree on that last point- that countries are not allowed to police other countries. I believe it is the DUTY of world powers to utilize that power to uphold and protect basic human rights in all countries. If it is within the power of the United States to do said things, that is topple a rogue regime, and preserve the basic human rights of it's people, and it did nothing- I would find this to be irresponsible. I do understand that the UN is more prone to delegation and less violent means of regulation, but it grows more and more apparent on the world stage that Saddam is not willing to comply with the UN's sanctions. All the while he oppresses his people into a blunt submission and furthers military research. How can the world sit idly by, knowing full-well what he is doing, and be purposefully blind to his subversions?

I could be wrong, but I believe it is the place of those in power to prevent these things. I believe there is sufficient evidence to show that the methods being used presently are inadequate. As such, action must be taken up a step.

Amon-Ra

 

Do you get beat up by people with cockney accents a lot?

When you speak out the word, "C-O-L-O-U-R" do you bask in the former glory of the English language?

Does it bring a tear to your eye?

Talk about blind patriotism, you dislike an entire country of people for defiling your language. Odd though, if you went back to your old English (sorry, "Ye Olde" English), before it mutated into the gross monstrosity that you English people speak today (digusting truly), you probably wouldn't understand half of what they said.

Good show chap! Cheerio!

 

Actually Z-Layrex. You and i both know well that what this newbie says IS in fact the general consensus of the British public. But not nessisarily yours. (and not totally mine either)

 

ha! BTA is the reincarnation of sisyphus.

 

On the subject of political insanity: "You show me ten men who cherish some religious doctrine or political ideology, and I'll show you nine men whose minds are utterly impervious to any factual evidence which contradicts their beliefs, and who regard the producer of such evidence as a criminal who ought to be suppressed."- H. Beam Piper

The case against Iraq is certainly growing, now that Bush's warclub is taking the time to try to explain its motivations to the general public. I am starting to come around to the idea that the United Nations should do something about it. But I strongly, strongly disagree with the idea that a powerful country acting alone should play God with another country that has not made overtly aggressive overtures towards it, and particularly with the notion, "If it is within the power of the United States to do said things, that is topple a rogue regime, and preserve the basic human rights of it's people, and it did nothing- I would find this to be irresponsible." This assumes that the powerful country (i.e. the United States in this case) is led by ethical, moral people- which isn't so far off the mark, right at this point in history. But what if the United States, powerful as it is, was led by, say- the Taliban. Would it then have the right to topple "rogue regimes" such as countries that violate a man's basic human right to enslave or kill his womenfolk? Who defines human rights, anyway? God forbid it should be ANY one country. If you have any faith in the principles of democracy, you have to conclude that the United Nations, or any organisation representing multiple countries, would represent the values of the world better than any individual country and its leader.

On a personal note, I live in a country that opposes capital punishment but is much more relaxed about marijuana, prostitution or legal drinking ages than the United States. I have read editorials by American writers strongly recommending taking military action against countries that do not represent American moral values. Does this represent a fringe minority? I sure hope so, but I don't live in the States so I don't really know the zeitgeist. One article suggested nuclear strikes were appropriate for a country that refused to follow America's example about capital punishment. So if you follow this "might makes right" argument to its conclusion, today it might be Iraq whose regime is toppled, what's to say that tomorrow it might not be Britain or France because of capital punishment, or Canada because of drugs?

 

Hmm, well I normally support the USA in everything they do.. and don't get me wrong, I want to invade Iraq, but i'm not sure on the exact reason for the USA doing it. They say to get Saddam out of power and destroy the nukes, but what happens once it's all over... who takes over rule?

There was an interesting panel discussion on CH4 last night. All about whether people were with Bush or not. Most e-mails were from people who didn't want to. There was an Iraqi on the show. He said that the Arab hate has spread to the UK now, as it inevitably would. But the hate is so strong in some parts of the middle east that people spit whenever they hear the name 'America' (according to him). All I know is that Blair wants to attack and i'll trust his judgment.

Also one more thing, apparently Bush said something last week that pissed alot of people off, what was it?

 

Someone should yell in Bush's little ears:

Ask FIRST; kill LATER!

But then again... he always does things backwards.

 

Scarampella,

check this out:

Not in Our Name

I got the flyer today at ucla.
It seems that resistance is still there. How strong it is and whether it will have any impact remains to be seen. But I am at least happy that there are people that don't buy the government propaganda.

In any case, the REAL question we should be asking is: How close are we getting to an Orwelian future?
The guy is already proven true on one of his works:
'Animal Farm': 'All animals are equal. Some are more equal than others' (which are the 'more equal' is left as an exercise to the reader). How far are we from proving him right in his other seminal work, '1984' ?

-thanos

 

With all do respect Laches, YOU are not being respectful. Why don't you take some of your own advice and stop calling others closed minded. I don't see your mind open to anything.

I'm glad there are a few who are willing to look at the bigger picture. I have not entered into this argument about whether Saddam deserves to be ousted or not because that is irrelevant to the question of changing US policy. I don't like the pre-emptive strike idea, and I don't like the US operating on its own without the UN unless we are directly threatened.

The Bush administration has not made its case against Iraq. The thousands of people killed, his policies toward his own people nor the Kurds have been brought up by the Bush Admin. as the reasons to invade. The public is not being invited into this discussion rather the opposite: anyone who questions Bush is labeled un-patriotic. I have a serious problem with that. Talk about name calling.

 

Arte, even though I agree with you completley, why get mired down in the same stupid discussions over and over?

Haven't you learned that you're always wrong, and they're always right? People with open mouths and closed minds are always "always right".

I learned. I'm wrong. Often, when I look at a thread that I'm tempted to reply on, I'll stop myself, because I just know I'm wrong. For what ever reason, I'm wrong.

There is no thoughtful exchanging of ideas, here, as politely disguised as they may be. There is only, "I am right and you are wrong".

I'm quite sure, someone will inform me that I'm wrong, here too.

 

Hmm, I forgot to add this earlier... This is a factor that noone seems to consider: time. Saddam Hussein is about 75 years old now, did you know? His regime has shown very few signs of aggression since the Gulf war, and just to add to that, it is heavily guarded by UK and US airforce. You ever read those little third page notes in the papers saying that US forces took out a radar base? Saddam is in no position to pose a threat to the US right now.

The entire case against Iraq is about the threat the MIGHT pose, eventually, if they, for instance, develop nuclear weapons. However, that is not something you do overnight. The case against Iraq is that they have TRIED to get hold of uranium and the necessary machinery, not even the US claims that they've already developed such a program. And developing it, if they somehow got the resources would take time.

And once again, an attack is the only way to be absolutely that Saddam WILL use his weapons of mass destruction. If you attack, expect Iraq to defend itself.

Personally, I don't think in terms of strategic victory, I think in terms of saving human lives, and I think the most economic solution, in terms of that, would be to wait him out. Saddam has no apparent heir, so when he does die there will be political instability in the country. And that's the best opportunity to strike, when Iraq is on the border of a civil war.

It has an added advantage: the UN will be able to step in as a peace keeping unit, just like they did in former Yugoslavia, which is much easier to accept for everyone involved.

 

Those are all outright falsehoods. The Bush Administration presented its case to the United Nations and mentioned the thousands killed and the Kurdish minority throughtout the report. I posted a link to that document at the time, IIRC.

And you still haven't answered any of Laches's arguments.

 

I think Saddam is misunderstood. Maybe his actions are just a desperate plea for help from the West/Industrialized world. Could he be a really just a good guy stuck in a bad situation?



Okay seriously...I'm still wondering why we're not arming the Kurds and Shia's (Shi'ites?) in Iraq to help them take over their country, and install a leadership to help everyone? Why does America need to personally go? Although I think Saddam in a threat to the U.S., he's an indirect one. I'm more concerned with how he distributes his weaponry and aids terror organizations than I am about Saddam or Iraq doing something specific.

 

I personally am all for punishing Iraq, but doing it as one country without the support of the UN isn't a very good idea in my opinion. I agree that the current regime in Iraq is monsterous and should be dealt with, but attacking based on that principal won't hold up internationally. If we were to do something over in the US I'd suggest more covert means of destroying a corrupt regime. Then again, maybe not... but still, if I were president of the US (and thank the Fates I'm not!) I'd try for more international support before I "drop the hammer and despense some indescriminate justice."