Printable View
Are you sure Saddam did? Maybe he just didn't care. Not care and tell are two different things. I wish the trial of those marines won't just be a show after they will be released when media's attention is elsewhere, just like they did with William Calley, responsible for the My Lai massacre in Vietnam.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Yes, Bush says he cares, but does he really, or is it just to please the voters?
You know Mark, I think we'll just have to disagree with a lot of issues. As we are living now into 21st century I tend to think that lot of the problems in the world nowdays can be solved with diplomacy - not with guns and war.
Yes, we had WW1 and WW2 in 20th century, but after those I think that we should be wise enough to avoid situations like that to happen again. At the moment I can see that the tension between muslim world and christian world is rising and US attacking on Iraq and perhaps later on to Iran does't really help too much, does it? There should be enough room for diplomacy allways.
As you've said the US cannot win any fights it has entered. So why do they have to constantly enter to another war? Why instead of using brutal force they cannot use talking and diplomacy?
The answer, again, As I said before, war is far more profitable than peace is. This is a common fact in economics. Unfortunately I think it's naiive to think that US is supporting freedom by wars.
Because they only talk with the "good", and they want "justice", regardless if it's dead or alive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodeye
Yes, Justice and Prudence are often enemies.
I always root for Prudence. ;)
Very excellent points. I cannot agree with all of them, but a reasonable assertion. That said lets break it down...Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodeye
First off, the US cannot win in the eyes of public opinion, espeically it seems in your part of the world. That said, if they cannot win, should US foreign policy to just ignore what happens in the rest of the world. They used to do that, and that was a factor in WW2 starting for sure. Clinton's foreign policy was to not respond to attack after attack of Al Quaida, (African Embassy bombing,the first WTC attack, USS Cole, etc.) and after a while, Bin Laden thought, well why not the World Trade Center a second time?? Ignoring problems does not work. So ok, now we try diplomacy. This is the argument always heard here in Canada. We are not a powerful nation militarily. We are big on this diplomatic stuff.
Great two examples here of diplomacy not working. First off, Taliban in Afghanistan. They were harbouring a group of people responsible for the tragedy of 9/11. Those people admitted to it, for Bin Laden was very happy to have video of his cadre sitting around bragging about it. It wasn't a doctored tape, it wasn't a Jewish conspiracy (some idiots believe that to this day) and it certaintly was not the doing of the CIA. 9/11 happened. So ok, we know who did it, but the good honest folks that everyone knows as the Taliban were asked to detain and hand the criminals that are Al Quaida over. Basically they gave the finger to the US, and later the UN. So now what?
Ok Example 2. Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait. Claims it is Iraqi territory. Now while the British in colonial years were pretty hap hazard with their borders, no one except Saddam thought Kuwait really was part of Iraq. The Kuwaiti's certainly did not. So ok, He invaded of August of 1990, and in Feburary, 1991, the coalition invaded. Why? Failed diplomacy. Saddam refused to realize no one was buying his argument. Actually, he knew they didn't agree with his argument, but he figured, ah why negotiate or admit fault, they wont do anything.
So ok, we have two examples in recent history where diplomacy reaches a dead end. What message does that send to the terrorists? What message does doing nothing send to a dictator? See, diplomacy is negotiations. IT is no different than when you go to buy a car and you haggle with the salesman. You each want the best deal, but you also realize you will saw off in the middle. The consequences of failure are much greater, but that is why you don't spend 4 months with teams of negotiators buying a car. In International affairs, two nations, or two sides of a "conflict" have to see a common ground, have to reach a common conclusion, or at least a comprimise that both sides can live with. But you have no recourse if one side does NOT want to deal with the other. See, you would never advocate the use of force. Neville Chamberlain twisted himself into a pretzel trying to reach ground with Hitler in the 30's. Britain did NOT want to be drawn into a war. Her treasury was depleted after WW1 and the depression. Her people didn't want to sacrifice more sons to a useless slaughter and memories of the first war to end all wars. But in the end, Britain ended up at war, and Neville Chamberlain was the PM to announce it. Diplomacy only works when both parties will live with the outcome.
You guys can spout off all you want about the need for diplomacy, and how all war is wrong. I can tell you a lot of military men in the US will tell you they agree, but they also know at some point, you have to be prepared to stand up for your beliefs. You also should realize that you better prepared to die for your beliefs also.
Now we can say in the Iraq instance this is wrong. That is your opinion, and I realize you have your reasons for feeling that way. I wont sway you off of it, and in the case of Eki, well, he is still defending the actions of a dictator so I figure his argument is purely another reason to hate Americans. He hasn't denied this so I guess I am right on the money there. For the rest of my opponents on here, I respect your feelings. I respect you feel the need to use diplomacy and use negotiation over force to ensure the goals of a nation state. This system however will not work when one party refuses to be civilized. Saddam did it twice. 1991, 2002. He negotiated in bad faith, if at all. He demanded, he threatened, and while some of you might say the US did also, remember who created the issues for the need for this diplomatic negotiation. It wasn't the US that invaded a sovereign nation. It wasn't the US that refused to allow UN inspectors to see WMD facilities and search for production facilities. The UN resolutions, so finely negotiated as terms of cease fire after the eviction of Iraq from Kuwait were the articles that Saddam was to live by in exchange for the cease fire. Over the next 11 years, Saddam refused to live up to all of these 14 resolutions, and after the UN slapped sanctions on his regime in a trade embargo for anything but food and medical supplies, he continued to deal oil on the black market to the French through Jordan and Syria.
So we have a failed diplomacy with a man who took his nation to war 2 times in the previous 25 years. We have a man who agreed to terms set down through the UN to save his sorry hide after miscalculating resolve in 1991. We have a man who repeately has used his own people as slaves to his own grandeur, and lived like a king while starving, gassing and generally abusing his own people whenever and wherever he pleased. This isn't fiction. This isn't a right-wing conspiracy, this is history. Saddam refused to use his head. HE thumbed his nose at every nation he dealt with. HE ran a vicious regime where no amount of oppression was too much. You want to really negotiate with this man? You really think anyone should trust his word? Come on, you would need a bath after shaking hands with him.
Diplomacy is great when two democratic nations have a disagreement. The US and Canada share 3000 miles of border, and we are constantly in disagreement over many issues. There is no threats, there is no arms on the border, there is endless amounts of negotiation. Democratic societies can negotiate and use diplomacy and it works. Reasonable people can always avoid war when dealing with reasonable opponents. IT all falls apart when one party has no interest in anyone's well being but their own. Hitler and Germany in the 30's, the Taliban in Afghanistan, Saddam in 1990/91, Saddam in 02. If you are not going to use force at some point, then in the end, the negotiations are dependent on both sides being willing to find a common solution. It is like being in a union and never voting for a strike to show management you will stand together if negotiations fail. You always vote for a strike, while knowing you don't want to be out of work for 3 weeks or more walking the street. You know this, and you do it. Management knows if they don't see a strike vote, you wont stand, and they wont negotiate for a solution that benefits anyone but themselves. That is business, and you have extreme measures. Why should international diplomacy be any different?
First off, if the Marines are found innocent, even by the toughest tribunal ever, you would still say the fix was in. The American media wont let this one go Eki, trust me, they hate Bush almost as much as you do. AS for Saddam, I see you are still making excuses for him. Saddam knew. Nothing happened in Iraq that Saddam didn't find out about sooner or later. He wasn't sitting in his palace while his minions made up their own policy. No, between he and his sons, killing people was a sport. Torture, rape and oppression were their stock in trade. The UN and Amnesity International have documented much of the crap that went on in Iraq, and I am sure it didn't happen just because Saddam didn't care. Eki, you really expect any reasonable thinking logical human to believe that Saddam knew maybe and didn't care? That is as great a sin as actively ordering it in my books. Weak, very weak argument on your part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
When you quit defending Saddam Hussein, as if his actions were justified when he stood over a nation for over 25 years killing thousands every year, then maybe I will give you credit for making a point.
Saddam is dead because he refused to bend to anyone's will but his own selfish wishes, even when faced with choices that would have allowed him to skate out of 2 certain wars with no real penalty. Saddam was a thug, and not a very bright one at that. No wonder his people found him guilty, and while many people disagree with the death penalty, including myself, in this case, it does NOT bother me at all. There is a special place in hell reserved for evil leaders who use their own people for amusement. As they say in old westerns "he needed killing".
Heck, one more example of diplomacy failing. Eki wont even admit Saddam was a dictatorial thug. He wont lose anything by admitting this, and yet he defends him. See, reasonable people see other peoples arguments when they are reasonable. Woodeye, Studiose have both presented their thoughts in a cogent manner and I can see some of their points, and don't disagree with their basic principles. But when Eki cannot see Hussein for the animal he was DOCUMENTED to be then he really is in a wonderland of denial. Amnesity International does not make up stuff and they will categoriacally state what was going on in Iraq and who signed off on it. I am not part of the right-wing conspiracy (so-called) to take down a nice guy here. I am talking about a full on dictator. In the classic sense, you know up there with Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Mao Tse-Tung. Yet Eki in over 40 posts and 3 days of arguing is STILL defending the man's actions. Eki, what do you do for a living? You should be a PR man for a dictator. Maybe Quaddifi can hire you, he is still in business....
Sure I can admit that, I just don't take for granted everything that's said about him. I didn't know him personally, and some things said may be propaganda from his opposition and enemies. It has been suggested that Iraqi refugees, exiles and opposition on purpose lied about the WMDs in order to get the US invade Iraq. I wonder what else they may have lied about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
It's hard to believe Saddam personally knew EVERY minute detail of what was going on in his country. It's a country of 25 million people for God's sake, he should have had supernatural powers in order to do that. It has also been said he was out of touch with reality and believed himself he had WMDs because he was surrounded by yes-men who only told him what they thought he wanted to hear. Do you really believe his thugs told him everytime they wanted to have some good time by raping someone or get a little extra by some pillaging?
Mark, you are fantastic. Finally I can come onto the board and read some sense about politics. Keep posting, because your explanations are like a breath of fresh air, and maybe, if you keep posting, people like Eki, who seem to have no understanding at all of the way the world works, will learn something.
What you say about diplomacy is, sadly, true. It only works when both sides want to reach a compromise.
As far as Saddam is concerned, maybe this little fact, Eki, will open your eyes to what the man was like. At the first meeting of the Baath party after Saddam had declared himself the leader, a few of the senior party members present suggested that it might be a good idea for the party to hold an election for the leadership, rather than simply announcing Saddam's accession to the post. It would give legitimacy to the leader's position, they argued. Saddam listened to the discussion for a short time, long enough to see who thought a leadership election was a good idea, and then ordered those people to be taken out of the room, taken to a room close by, tortured so that the rest of the people could hear their screams, and then killed. They were dead within hours of having suggested the leadership election.
Try negotiating with a man like that.
Eki, since you are so much a fan of plausable denial, why don't you grant George Bush that defense?? You cant have it both ways yet you always do. You say Saddam could have been lied to by yes men and lackies yet Bush isn't allowed to have the defense that the CIA, as well as most western intelliegence agencies were wrong? No, you dont' get off that easy.
After this many posts, you FINALLY admit it. I challenged you about 30 posts back to admit that he was a dictatorial thug who used his own people as a currency.
Iraq is a country of 25 Million. No leader can ever know EVERY LAST SINGLE THING. I don't dispute that, but when you have Amnesity International documneting numerous cases of state sponsored and state sanctioned torture, and no one being held accountable for these actions by Saddam, then you obviously know who is signing off on all of this. The man at the top. Qusay and Uday were infamous for their antics. They killed, tortured and used people and they were Saddam's sons. He knew what they were about. You are still defending the actions of a war criminal and thug. When the state uses its own people in a such a callous and obvious manner, it is clear who is sanctioning it.
When a sherriff in a small US town beats up a suspect to attain a confession, the Civil Rights crowd in the US goes crazy and defends the suspect's rights andthat law officer is usually charged and drummed out of his job. In no way would any US President be held accountable. In Iraq, not only was the suspect being beat up to attain confessions, it wasn't an isolated case, it was state policy. Amnesty International are the most reliable arbiter of state sponsored torture and violation of human rights, and they had Iraq right up there in the top 10 most deadly places to live in fear of the government. Saddam Hussein's record is not one that was made up by refugee's lying and exiles using people's sympathies. Eki, you are still defending this man.
I am not taking for granted EVERYTHING that has been stated. I am only going on the obvious. Amnesty is not a body that is sponsored by any government nor do they have any desire to provide the American government with propaganda to use against an innocent world leader who just wasn't running a country with very good lines of communication on their evil deeds.
Oh one more thing, if Saddam had yes men telling he had WMD's when he didn't, then something is seriously wrong. You are the leader who wont tollerate people telling you no. You tell your minions to prepare your supply of nerve gas to move from one palace to another. You really think the minions never bought or attained this weapon? Do you believe it never was created? You think Saddam wouldnt' have asked for a demonstration of the weapon? You think for one moment he would have weapons only in his own mind? REALLY? My my, you sound as naive and oblvious to the truth as the Iraqi information minister who stood on a building in Baghdad saying the Americans would be dead before they got near the city, and American tanks would never make it,.....as an Abrams Tank rolled down the road behind him.