0
   

THE US, UN AND IRAQ V

 
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Dec, 2003 09:06 pm
Great minds think alike, nimh. I was probably clicking while you were posting.
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Dec, 2003 09:39 pm
No surprise
It is an extension of the Dubya Doctrine. Speak out against the Dubya Regime and you are a traitor that will be punished.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Dec, 2003 09:42 pm
Seems like a trace of Nixon's paranoia in play here.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Dec, 2003 06:06 am
This administration likes to think they're Reagan, but they're much more Nixon.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Dec, 2003 06:24 am
http://www.allhatnocattle.net/saddam%20bush%20light.jpg
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Dec, 2003 06:29 am
Laughing
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Dec, 2003 06:37 am
It's like they are a bunch of cartoon characters. Yesterday Bush started out to get an mri of his knee .... that morphed into a visit to Powell by noon ... by mid-afternoon someone said 'hey wait a minute' and the whole trip suddenly was being hyped as a 'trip to visit the troops'.

I'd love to hear how they spin a trip to the john.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Dec, 2003 06:44 am
Brand X wrote:
nimh wrote:
Brand X wrote:
Quote:
"the West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do."

Gel, Westerners fought for and defend freedom, without freedom you can never reach superiority. The way I see it, the ideas and values of freedom have made the west superior.


Heh - I think that would be the point: that's how we see it - but it's not how many of them see it ;-)


That quote, taken out of context, could yield more than one meaning. I don't like the way it eludes to the success of the western world happening quite by accident, it was the wisdom of free minds, diligence and foresight.

Anyway, no arguemnt here, just wanted to clarify my comment on the quote.


Here, let's put windowed quotes inside more windowed quotes. Anyone who honestly believes the core statement about the west and organized violence is hopelessly naive and/or ignorant. Virtually every major technological development of western civilization before 1600 was first devised in China. What did the Chinese do with the clock, gunpowder, astrolabes, etc.? Sweet f*ck-all. Western nations eventually came to dominate the world militarily and economically because of a basic freedom of individual action which meant that "inventions" were invented time and again in different places, and actively exploited in many times and places. Oriental despotisms were largely the norm in the world outside the west, where the conditions were not actually savagely primitive. Such societies were inimical to change and innovation. Such societies indeed were familiar with organized violence, on large and sometimes even vast scales. They were not familiar with innovation and adaptation. They could not adjust to change within generations, let alone within months, or even weeks--an attribute of western societies which the explorers and colonists were able to exploit to survive, and eventually to triumph. Cortez and his Spaniards were not more violent or warlike than the Toltec societies of the central Mexican plateau, and in fact, came from a less warlike society. But Cortez himself, and most of his followers, were adaptable and open to change and experimentation. Yes they used organized violence; they also used diplomacy, exploited mistrust and jealousy, learned the local languages and made allies--in short, they adapted, survived and eventually triumphed.

One last minor point--no other civilization in history had so thoroughly studied and mastered the art of sailing, and the technology thereof. All things considered, western societies exploited many ideas, and displayed a consistent adapatability that left the rest of the world's civilizations in the dust. The original quote about organized violence is specious; it is, however, a wonderful rationalization for cultures which continue to resist change, without consideration of the potential value of such change, and which continue to long for the slumber of the ages, as opposed to recognizing the potential of and embracing the promise of the future.

Please, think before you post such hopelessly nonsensical tripe.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Dec, 2003 06:47 am
Quote:
Rumsfeld Visited Baghdad in 1984 to Reassure Iraqis, Documents Show
Trip Followed Criticism Of Chemical Arms' Use

By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 19, 2003; Page A42

Donald H. Rumsfeld went to Baghdad in March 1984 with instructions to deliver a private message about weapons of mass destruction: that the United States' public criticism of Iraq for using chemical weapons would not derail Washington's attempts to forge a better relationship, according to newly declassified documents.


Rumsfeld, then President Ronald Reagan's special Middle East envoy, was urged to tell Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz that the U.S. statement on chemical weapons, or CW, "was made strictly out of our strong opposition to the use of lethal and incapacitating CW, wherever it occurs," according to a cable to Rumsfeld from then-Secretary of State George P. Shultz.

The statement, the cable said, was not intended to imply a shift in policy, and the U.S. desire "to improve bilateral relations, at a pace of Iraq's choosing," remained "undiminished." "This message bears reinforcing during your discussions."

The documents, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the nonprofit National Security Archive, provide new, behind-the-scenes details of U.S. efforts to court Iraq as an ally even as it used chemical weapons in its war with Iran.

An earlier trip by Rumsfeld to Baghdad, in December 1983, has been widely reported as having helped persuade Iraq to resume diplomatic ties with the United States. An explicit purpose of Rumsfeld's return trip in March 1984, the once-secret documents reveal for the first time, was to ease the strain created by a U.S. condemnation of chemical weapons.

The documents do not show what Rumsfeld said in his meetings with Aziz, only what he was instructed to say. It would be highly unusual for a presidential envoy to have ignored direct instructions from Shultz.

When details of Rumsfeld's December trip came to light last year, the defense secretary told CNN that he had "cautioned" Saddam Hussein about the use of chemical weapons, an account that was at odds with the declassified State Department notes of his 90-minute meeting, which did not mention such a caution. Later, a Pentagon spokesman said Rumsfeld raised the issue not with Hussein, but with Aziz.

Pentagon spokesman Larry Di Rita said yesterday that "the secretary said what he said, and I would go with that. He has a recollection of how that meeting went, and I can't imagine that some additional cable is going to change how he recalls the meeting."

"I don't think it has to be inconsistent," Di Rita said. "You could make a strong condemnation of the use of chemical weapons, or any kind of lethal agents, and then say, with that in mind, 'Here's another set of issues' " to be discussed.

Last year, the Bush administration cited its belief that Iraq had and would use weapons of mass destruction -- including chemical, biological and nuclear devices -- as the principal reason for going to war.

But throughout 1980s, while Iraq was fighting a prolonged war with Iran, the United States saw Hussein's government as an important ally and bulwark against the militant Shiite extremism seen in the 1979 revolution in Iran. Washington worried that the Iranian example threatened to destabilize friendly monarchies in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Jordan.

Publicly, the United States maintained neutrality during the eight-year Iran-Iraq war, which began in 1980.

Privately, however, the administrations of Reagan and George H.W. Bush sold military goods to Iraq, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological agents, worked to stop the flow of weapons to Iran, and undertook discreet diplomatic initiatives, such as the two Rumsfeld trips to Baghdad, to improve relations with Hussein.

Tom Blanton, executive director of the National Security Archives, a Washington-based research center, said the secret support for Hussein offers a lesson for U.S. foreign relations in the post-Sept. 11 world.

"The dark corners of diplomacy deserve some scrutiny, and people working in places like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan and Uzbekistan deserve this kind of scrutiny, too, because the relations we're having with dictators today will produce Saddams tomorrow."

Shultz, in his instructions to Rumsfeld, underscored the confusion that the conflicting U.S. signals were creating for Iraq.

"Iraqi officials have professed to be at a loss to explain our actions as measured against our stated objectives," he wrote. "As with our CW statement, their temptation is to give up rational analysis and retreat to the line that U.S. policies are basically anti-Arab and hostage to the desires of Israel."

The declassified documents also show the hope of another senior diplomat, the British ambassador to Iraq, in working constructively with Hussein.

Shortly after Hussein became deputy to the president in 1969, then-British Ambassador H.G. Balfour Paul cabled back his impressions after a first meeting: "I should judge him, young as he is, to be a formidable, single-minded and hard-headed member of the Ba'athist hierarchy, but one with whom, if only one could see more of him, it would be possible to do business."

"A presentable young man" with "an engaging smile," Paul wrote. "Initially regarded as a [Baath] Party extremist, but responsibility may mellow him."

Staff writer Vernon Loeb contributed to this article.


Source
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Dec, 2003 06:52 am
The critics of those who questioned the legality and necessity of this war should remember some of the things we were told before it kicked off.

Blair is on record as saying (Jan/Feb 2003)

"War is not inevitable and no decisions have yet been taken"

"Saddam must disarm or he will be disarmed force"

When questioned what would happen if Saddam did disarm, he was forced to admit that he could remain in power with a conventional army.

Geoff Hoon, Defence Minister, said he had "no doubt" WMD would be discovered in the course of the "action" to come or shortly afterwards. [However that did not prompt him to ensure an adequate supply of NBC kit for British troops].

Post conflict Blair says "The Iraq Survey Group must be given adequate time to complete their task".

"Saddam had weapons programmes"

Now the head of the Iraq Survey Group is leaving, before it presents its conclusions in February.

From today's Independent

Quote:
After eight months of fruitless search, George Bush has in effect washed his hands of the hunt for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, in whose name the United States and Britain went to war last March.
David Kay, the CIA adviser who headed the US-lead search for WMD, is to quit, before submitting his assessment to the US President in February. The departure of Mr Kay, a strong believer in the case for toppling Saddam Hussein because of his alleged weapons comes as a particular embarrassment to Tony Blair...

...Despite the capture and interrogation of many senior Iraqi officials, there has been no break through. Saddam is said to have told investigators what Iraq told the UN before the invasion: that it no longer had banned weapons.


Its all very well saying how great it is that Saddam is now caught. But Blair said he could remain in power providing he gave up the weapons he didn't have. Now we have found Saddam was telling the truth. The only logical and honourable course is to apologise, withdraw our troops, give him back his country and pay reparations.

Or could it be that WMD were only ever peripheral to the whole argument from the beginning? Surely Bush and Blair would not spin up an excuse to get us into a war they wanted for darker (very dark...black actually) reasons?

No they would never do that. These are caring people (caring conservative meets caring social democrat) much troubled by the fate of poor oppressed Arabs. They might have made an honest mistake, but they would never deliberately lie to take us into war under false pretences would they? Its gotta be a sad place when people ascribe such base motives to our saint-like politicians, doing good and fighting evil wherever it raises its ugly head. Truly we are not worthy of such figures.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Dec, 2003 06:57 am
Setanta wrote:
Brand X wrote:
nimh wrote:
Brand X wrote:
Quote:
"the West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do."

Gel, Westerners fought for and defend freedom, without freedom you can never reach superiority. The way I see it, the ideas and values of freedom have made the west superior.


Heh - I think that would be the point: that's how we see it - but it's not how many of them see it ;-)


That quote, taken out of context, could yield more than one meaning. I don't like the way it eludes to the success of the western world happening quite by accident, it was the wisdom of free minds, diligence and foresight.

Anyway, no arguemnt here, just wanted to clarify my comment on the quote.


Here, let's put windowed quotes inside more windowed quotes. Anyone who honestly believes the core statement about the west and organized violence is hopelessly naive and/or ignorant. Virtually every major technological development of western civilization before 1600 was first devised in China. What did the Chinese do with the clock, gunpowder, astrolabes, etc.? Sweet f*ck-all. Western nations eventually came to dominate the world militarily and economically because of a basic freedom of individual action which meant that "inventions" were invented time and again in different places, and actively exploited in many times and places. Oriental despotisms were largely the norm in the world outside the west, where the conditions were not actually savagely primitive. Such societies were inimical to change and innovation. Such societies indeed were familiar with organized violence, on large and sometimes even vast scales. They were not familiar with innovation and adaptation. They could not adjust to change within generations, let alone within months, or even weeks--an attribute of western societies which the explorers and colonists were able to exploit to survive, and eventually to triumph. Cortez and his Spaniards were not more violent or warlike than the Toltec societies of the central Mexican plateau, and in fact, came from a less warlike society. But Cortez himself, and most of his followers, were adaptable and open to change and experimentation. Yes they used organized violence; they also used diplomacy, exploited mistrust and jealousy, learned the local languages and made allies--in short, they adapted, survived and eventually triumphed.

One last minor point--no other civilization in history had so thoroughly studied and mastered the art of sailing, and the technology thereof. All things considered, western societies exploited many ideas, and displayed a consistent adapatability that left the rest of the world's civilizations in the dust. The original quote about organized violence is specious; it is, however, a wonderful rationalization for cultures which continue to resist change, without consideration of the potential value of such change, and which continue to long for the slumber of the ages, as opposed to recognizing the potential of and embracing the promise of the future.

Please, think before you post such hopelessly nonsensical tripe.



Set, I took the quote as more of a moral issue, the willingness to cause death, not the ability to do so. Re-read the quote.

You are correct, anyone that argues the issue on an 'ability' basis is truly .." hopelessly naive and/or ignorant.".
0 Replies
 
pistoff
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Dec, 2003 07:05 am
Logical and honorable.
"The only logical and honourable course is to apologise, withdraw our troops, give him back his country and pay reparations."

Blair and Dubya- Logical and honorable.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Dec, 2003 07:26 am
Well, Gel, i would question that assertion as well, which is why i specifically mentioned the Toltec cultures in Mexico. Bernal Diaz reports that he and a companion counted the skulls on the base line of a pyramid of skulls in Tenochtitlan, and calculated that the pyramid consisted of more than million skulls. One may suggest his math was poor, but one cannot ignore that the Toltecs suffered no inferiority in "applying organized violence." I was also taking issue with the statement that there was no superiority of ideas. There was indeed, and it accounts for why Europeans exploited inventions so successfully. The Chinese invented a reliable clock centuries before that innovation in Europe. It remained a broken down toy in the Forbidden City. By contrast, Europeans constantly refined the invention, and eventually produced clocks sufficiently accurate to allow successful navigation to any place on earth washed by the seas.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Dec, 2003 07:41 am
Setanta wrote:
Well, Gel, i would question that assertion as well, which is why i specifically mentioned the Toltec cultures in Mexico. Bernal Diaz reports that he and a companion counted the skulls on the base line of a pyramid of skulls in Tenochtitlan, and calculated that the pyramid consisted of more than million skulls. One may suggest his math was poor, but one cannot ignore that the Toltecs suffered no inferiority in "applying organized violence." I was also taking issue with the statement that there was no superiority of ideas. There was indeed, and it accounts for why Europeans exploited inventions so successfully. The Chinese invented a reliable clock centuries before that innovation in Europe. It remained a broken down toy in the Forbidden City. By contrast, Europeans constantly refined the invention, and eventually produced clocks sufficiently accurate to allow successful navigation to any place on earth washed by the seas.


Interesting, could you apply that theory to Nagasaki and Hiroshima please.
thx
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Dec, 2003 08:41 am
gel

I think Setanta's arguments are compelling. It cannot be the case that mere militarism or some extraordinary cultural urge towards dominance and cruelty explains this story. And technological advance is, as Set says, a consequence of some quite unique set of cultural factors which as allowed productive intellectual opportunism.

One can look at the cargo cults of the Pacific as a colorful and telling example. Wishing to have the technology (and its products) of the European world, the folks on those islands set up elaborate copies of airplanes on hilltops, hoping to attract and placate or please whatever forces had given such gifts to Europeans.

We, you and I and Set, are just lucky that we happened to be born into this cultural inheritance, and none of us deserve some special pat on the back as individuals. But we did get lucky.

Also, even though this cultural inheritance has allowed incredible - indeed, mind-boggling - intellectual and technological feats to have been achieved (eg, see NY Times today for photos of distant stellar objects), it doesn't follow that our culture is 'superior' in all aspects to other cultures, such as ethics or the arts.

Nagasaki, or something like it - some horrid failing - would occur regardless of which cultural inheritance had proved most dominant. Perfection is not obtainable, other than in the bedroom with the right girl and the right drugs.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Dec, 2003 09:24 am
You both make excellent points. Still I maintain that regardless of the technoloy involved,the willingness to apply that technology to impel the acceptance of a personal point of view requires a lower sense of moral values to use the technological advantage than not.

Bigger guns or a 50 ton bomb do not justify the carnage these people have suffered to be free of carnage.

I'm talking heart here ... not E=MC2
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Dec, 2003 09:31 am
gel

We are agreed. There is also a poverty of the heart (and the imagination) which we manifest and which may bring all of us to more grief than any quaint and deluded agrarian or hunter-gatherer society could achieve.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Dec, 2003 10:07 am
KILLERS

I AM singing to you
Soft as a man with a dead child speaks;
Hard as a man in handcuffs,
Held where he cannot move:

Under the sun
Are sixteen million men,
Chosen for shining teeth,
Sharp eyes, hard legs,
And a running of young warm blood in their wrists.

And a red juice runs on the green grass;
And a red juice soaks the dark soil.
And the sixteen million are killing. . . and killing
and killing.

I never forget them day or night:
They beat on my head for memory of them;
They pound on my heart and I cry back to them,
To their homes and women, dreams and games.

I wake in the night and smell the trenches,
And hear the low stir of sleepers in lines--
Sixteen million sleepers and pickets in the dark:
Some of them long sleepers for always,

Some of them tumbling to sleep to-morrow for always,
Fixed in the drag of the world's heartbreak,
Eating and drinking, toiling. . . on a long job of
killing.
Sixteen million men.


Recognize the author?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Dec, 2003 10:35 am
I would say that you are reifying in the mode of the current leftist historical revisionism, which is to say, that the poor, technologically backward cultures are morally superior to ours, and the evidence is in the cruelty we displayed toward them. I would point again to the Toltecs and a bloodthirsty fascination with human sacrifice. I would point the attempts at obliteration of the invader practiced by native cultures in those instances in which they got the upper hand. Just as western culture cannot claim to be a superior culture based upon its heritage of individual initiative, it cannot be claimed that other cultures are morally superior simply because they failed to exterminate Europeans they saw as encroaching. There is no way of measuring how many people lost their lives to the advancing banners of Islam in the 7th, 8th and 9th centuries. There is no way of numbering the dead left in the wake of the Mongol horde or of the Golden Horde; no way of numbering the dead left in the wake of the expansion of the Osmanli Turks.

I consider an argument about some putative moral deficiency on the part of Europeans based upon mlitary technological sophistication to be without foundation or merit. You can bet Attila would have used assault rifles had they been available to him.

I consider contentions of moral terpitude ascribed to western culture to be historical revisionism, and have read to many bullsh*t distortions of history in support of such a dubious claim to think otherwise. That the west eventually reached a point in technological sophistication which afforded the opportunity to slaughter on an unprecedented scale does not absolve other cultures of the lust for slaughter which history all to clearly demonstrates.

I don't claim the culture which nutured me is superior to other cultures; i don't accept a contention that it is inferior, and especially not on moralistic grounds.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Dec, 2003 10:56 am
set

Not sure if you are talking to me there. But I doubt we disagree here very much.

Western culture (if one can talk so broadly) has it's own unique failings, some of them clearly of a moral nature, and there's every reason to point to them with the same aim in which we ever bring up moral arguments. I don't make a charge the west is more immoral than other cultures.

But along with the West's unique achievements also arises the unique consequences of our own success. We have, are, and will continue causing effects in the biosphere which have not just an empirical character, but a moral character as well.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 08:45:17