 |
|  |
 |
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000 time: 00:26
|
|
Because many of them are dictatorial themselves. Turkey is only barely democratic. Egypt, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan are all dictatorships with bad records on human rights. I could go on, but we're perfectly happy with most dictators on this planet, as long as they tow the line. Saddam's problem isn't that he's a murderous bastard, because he is. It's that he doesn't do as he's told.
Burma is carrying our real genocide, and it's completely off everyone's radar. In fact, when local governments in the US, including the state of Massachusetts decided to stop doing business with companies that do business with the Burmese dictatorship, the US government (under Clinton) sued them in court to stop them from doing so.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001 time: 22:26
|
|
quote: Originally posted by GePap
If we were trully moral and good, these regimes would not be our friends, now would they? |
You are confusing international relations with internal politics. You don't often get to choose the leaders of the various regions of the globe, but your country has to deal with them, as does mine.
The very thing you argue against is the thing you seem to support. Changes to 'better' regimes. Either that, or you think the US should ignore vast areas of the globe, because your sensibilities are offended by the governments there.
quote: This is where people become cynical and decide to take potshots at Americans...we say we are great and care about democracy while selling weapons to people who torture others. Please explain why a third party should not become cynical and see the US as a bunch of self-serving arrogant lying bastards? At least the French don't claim they do what they do for Freedom, they just do it. |
Right... the French are not basing their resistance on any grounds other than French self interest and they declare that? I think you are mistaken.
Aside from that, the purpose of military action is to defuse a very dangerous situation for the entire world. That being a dictator of Saddam's viciousness, in the Persian Gulf, seeking nuclear weapons. It doesn't matter if he has them now, it matters that he wants them very badly, and if left alone he will eventually get them.
The crap about democracy elsewhere and other such silly sh*t is brought up by the opponents of military action. Then when the proponents respond that maybe military action would be good for Iraqis themselves in the long run, people like you go into hystercis about cynicism and hypocrisy.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001 time: 23:26
|
|
quote: The very thing you argue against is the thing you seem to support. Changes to 'better' regimes. Either that, or you think the US should ignore vast areas of the globe, because your sensibilities are offended by the governments there. |
I don't support the notion of creating better regimes by force. Nor do I think the US should ignore regimes: there is a great amount of space though between attacking and being allied, and I do think that alliences with obviously authoritarian regimes greatly undermines the "we are for freedom message fo the US". Canada and the UK are not allies of Egypt, or Saudi Arabia, selling them billions of dollars in weapons,so obviously there are alternatives.
quote: The crap about democracy elsewhere and other such silly sh*t is brought up by the opponents of military action. Then when the proponents respond that maybe military action would be good for Iraqis themselves in the long run, people like you go into hystercis about cynicism and hypocrisy. |
I don't givce a damn about what is good for Iraqis..I am not one. What I ask myself is, what is best for the US, our allies, world stability and general peace, which then filters down to Iraqis. And yes, hypocrasy is just the word..all of a sudden the suffering of Iraqis matters, how convinient. I didn't see you caring much about the Iraqi people in 2001, now all of a sudden you and supporters of the war care so much? Oh, but the people of North Korea, well, that should be solved diplomatically.
War for freedom is a universalist aim, one which should only be espoused by those that actually believe in it and not people using it cynically.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001 time: 23:26
|
|
Yes, and you care SO MUCH that you post such views on a Civ related site forum. Oh, what a humanitarian!
No, I do not care, nor can I , care more for people I do not know, have never known, will never know from the ME than I can for people I have never met, will never meet from Angola, Burma, Usbakistan, Afghanistan, Rwanda, Burundi, Sierra leone, Liberia, Nigeria, Ivory Coast, the DRC, Sudan, Colombia, China, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Ireland, so forth and so on, and so on.
So NYE since you are such a humanitarian who cares for all the people of the world deeply..whats the last time you voluteered to do some NGO work in some of the world's hellholes?
At least I am not arrogant enough to fantasize that I could do somehting so alien to people and willing to be honest with myself and others.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001 time: 22:26
|
|
quote: Originally posted by GePap
I don't givce a damn about what is good for Iraqis..I am not one. What I ask myself is, what is best for the US, our allies, world stability and general peace, which then filters down to Iraqis. And yes, hypocrasy is just the word..all of a sudden the suffering of Iraqis matters, how convinient. I didn't see you caring much about the Iraqi people in 2001, now all of a sudden you and supporters of the war care so much? Oh, but the people of North Korea, well, that should be solved diplomatically.
War for freedom is a universalist aim, one which should only be espoused by those that actually believe in it and not people using it cynically. |
You and those on your side of the argument are the ones making this crap up. It's not a war for freedom, and it never was intended as one. It's pretty clear to most people that Iraq is about Saddam and nukes... and some other possible actions later against states sponsoring terrorism.
The people of Iraq enter into it when people opposed to the war have the imagination to invoke suffering for the Iraqis as a reason not to go to war. I'm sorry, I don't see a short, sharp war as being worse for the Iraqi people than what the next 5 years has in store for them under the status quo.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001 time: 22:26
|
|
quote: Originally posted by GePap
Yes, and you care SO MUCH that you post such views on a Civ related site forum. Oh, what a humanitarian!
No, I do not care, nor can I , care more for people I do not know, have never known, will never know from the ME than I can for people I have never met, will never meet from Angola, Burma, Usbakistan, Afghanistan, Rwanda, Burundi, Sierra leone, Liberia, Nigeria, Ivory Coast, the DRC, Sudan, Colombia, China, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Ireland, so forth and so on, and so on.
So NYE since you are such a humanitarian who cares for all the people of the world deeply..whats the last time you voluteered to do some NGO work in some of the world's hellholes?
At least I am not arrogant enough to fantasize that I could do somehting so alien to people and willing to be honest with myself and others. |
Where are you going with this drivel. I've said already this is not about the Iraqi people. It is about the dictator with the oil money to buy nukes sitting right smack dab in the middle of the Persian Gulf.
Hello.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001 time: 23:26
|
|
An article from May 2002, from a "unnamed turkish military source". You know, this is almost as good as that Weekly World News article about how Saddam was going to go into Exile in France and be made Paris' ambassador to Washignton.
Cheney begun talking about Invading Iraq in July 2002, two months after this story. From then on, the US admin. has done everythign it can to try to lonk Saddam with both Al qaeda, a nuclear program, so forth and so on..and in all this time, with all its resources (may i add the British intelligence serivces in this), never, not once, not in Bush's sept 12 speech, not in the state of the union speech in Jan, not in Powell's briefing to the SecCouncil, not in Blair's dossier has anyone ever repeated anyting close to this.
Please tell me then why you find this article, of all articles, even 1/100000th of a percent worthwhile?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
cia
|
|
Far away from here
Apr 1999 time: 05:26
|
|
Boris, I personally was offered Russian military weaponry cargo shipped on demand to a port of my choice. Nukes, a bit more work but "accidents" do happen. And the Russian aren't exactly going to report the screwup.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26. Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|