gene90 writes:
You think the US human rights is even comparable to that of Iraq? Where are the death camps? What American cities did our military gas?
This is an evasion of the point I was making. I did not say we were "as bad" as Iraq. My point was that if you truly held your stated justification for war, then you must also believe those countries which have better humanitarian records than the US can invade us. Or anyway, those that feel we have committed enough human rights violations that we must be prevented from committing more would have the moral right to do so.
You will not see the death camps that we run because they are not publicized. Granted they are not as large as those run by Saddam and are not run directly by US agents. The CIA "renders" prisoners in this war on terror, by giving them to nations who do violate human rights in their interrogation procedures, sometimes to the subject's death.
Or should I say that some of the death camps we run are so huge and highly publicized they go unnoticed. Please explain what's the difference between rounding up people who have had no due process into one camp where you can kill them easily, or killing them where they are (with the same lack of due process) because that's even easier given modern technology? Given that there was no imminent threat from Iraq, that means this war was simply a giant death camp operated by the US.
While we have not gassed American cities, we supported Iraq's gassing of Kurdish cities. And according to some accounts we were prepared to use "chemical weapons" (granted not WMDs, but still in violation of the geneva convention) against Iraqis again:
Chemical hypocrites | George Monbiot | The Guardian . But why is "gassing" a criteria for anything horrible? To paraphrase Colin Powell, the Iraqi people are more in danger from high explosive rounds than chemical attacks.
gene90 writes:
No, we have "due process" and this thing called a "Bill of Rights". We aren't in Saddam's boat.
And by the way, how have we violated human rights in the War on on Terror?
This is a rather ironic comment, since the Bush administration has been undercutting that same Bill of Rights in order to fight the War on Terror. You do understand we no longer have "due process" if you are merely suspected of being a terrorist... whoops they just expanded that to murderers... whoops they just expanded that to "potential child molesters"... whoops slippery slope here we go!
We are not in Saddam's boat yet, but we have clearly departed the Flagship of Freedom.
And this is just at home, which ought to be good enough for any red-blooded patriot to be screaming mad. While I am not totally hung up on Guantanamo Bay as a clearcut violation for detaining some combatants, there are many cases of human rights violations as well as violations of international law that we have committed during the War on Terror.
These have already been mentioned in other posts and left unaddressed, so I am not going to go through them all again. If you want to, you can focus on our breaking international law, which sets the stage for so many more violations. Clearly another nation's breaking of humanitarian rights does NOT give us the legitimacy to invade, seize oilwells, and setup a new government the way we see fit. Iraqi WMDs, and the imminent threat they posed, were what we hung our war's legitimacy on. With these conditions nonexistent, you don't simply get to say "well, it's good enough they got freed."
gene90 writes:
I think that the very fact that we did support Saddam makes Operation Iraqi Freedom not only justified but morally necessary.
Uhmmmmm, how about making us culpable? Just because a bad cop wastes the crime boss he helped rule and rob a neighborhood, does not suddenly make the bad cop a good cop. And what happens when we install the next government? Will we be keeping close tabs to make sure the rich share nicely with the poor of Iraq? Or will it be the same old same old?
Again, our culpability in the past, and current moral ambiguity, would give justification (according to YOUR RULES) for an invasion by others.
gene90 writes:
Oh, so I disagree with you, therefore I am uninformed?
That's some sterling logic for you.
No, you make statements which show clear lack of knowledge regarding the region. Two people may disagree despite sharing the same level of valid information. This is not the case here.
gene90 writes:
Let me tell you what my opinion is on this board and the people I am arguing with here. First of all, I've been here since this site was started... {edited out: huge bluster about his vast "experience" on such boards and derision of everyone but himself that posts on them}...
I don't care what the opposition thinks because I have very little respect for that opposition and I know from experience that none of you would cave in even I proved myself right. I'm here just to vent steam between final exams.
You have once again proven your lack of knowledge on what you speak.
Let me tell you something about knowledge and debate. There are facts and there is good logic. When one does not have the facts one is "misinformed." When one lacks logic, one's arguments are "weak" or "fallacious." This is all I go by. Two people may have both good logic and good facts and still disagree. This is called an "honest disagreement."
I have been called on for missing facts and for being fallacious, I have admitted these instances. I have "caved" when proven wrong. I feel that has made me better. If I felt as you do about this site, and that debate is simply ranting, I wouldn't come here.
gene90 writes:
My belief is that you, and 95% of the antiwar crowd, would have used Saddam's toast as an excuse NOT to go to war... {followed by giant anti-leftwing rant that has no bearing on anything I've ever said or done}
You truly have no idea who I am or what I have said about the war with Iraq.
I was against Saddam well before this war. We (by which I mean Donald Rumsfeld and Reagan) should never have helped arm that lunatic in the first place. But once in power, our best course of action did not lie in violent removal on zero legitimate grounds. We gained our first "right to remove him" back in the First Gulf War, though it was tainted by our arguable nod to let him invade Kuwait in the first place. Once Bush Sr allowed that window to close, our best bet was to contain and disempower him. This did not change on 9-11.
I am not against war! I did not predict this one would last long or costs 100,000s of lives (provided Turkey and Iran did not get involved). If anything, the war lasted slightly longer than I thought it would and is pretty close to the numbers I thought would be killed in combat.
HOWEVER... all of my criticisms for going into this war are still coming true!
Leave your leftwing bashing for your school chums. There are rightwingers who have realized this war was not about what Bush pretended it was about, that it would not deliver on its promises, and ultimately--- its long term consequences--- would do more harm than good for our nation and the world. Not the least of which, Bush's tearing up the concepts of international law has set a very dangerous precedent.
gene90 writes:
If Bush succeeds and establishes an Iraqi democracy, do you think that fifty years from now anyone (especially Iraqis) will care about whether or not the administration's claims of WMD were proven true?
I don't think Iraqis cared about WMDs back then or right now, much less 50 years from now. I think they feel they were repressed by Saddam and the US, now they just have the US to worry about. This gives them an opportunity to possibly get the US off their backs as well. Whether we actually allow this, or whether they place another yoke on their own shoulders, has yet to be seen.
By the way, Bush will not establish a true democracy. One cannot force democracy on a people, otherwise it is not a democracy. Though I guess you can do so by arresting and shooting everyone who disagrees with your vision, until all you have left are those willing to give your democracy a try. What a democracy!
gene90 writes:
I'm glad some president thought of something other than the next election and made the political gamble to oust him. And I hope other people get ousted before this is over.
You have got to be kidding. This was all about taking a gamble in order to win the next election! Didn't Bush's crushing of public dissent, control of news media, and if nothing else his ridiculous photo-op on the deck of the carrier make this clear to you?
I do hope two people in particular get ousted before "this is all over".
gene90 writes:
No, conservatives hate being lied to. Liberals apparently don't have a problem with it. (Hint: Clinton, 1996...)
Well you don't seem to mind some pretty huge lies, that must make you a liberal. And since I hate the lies I'm being forced to swallow, that must make me a conservative.
By the way, who said I liked Clinton? While it's true that Bush's antics make me yearn for the days of Clinton, I despised many of Clinton's poor choices. For example...
gene90 writes:
So it's ok if we ousted Milosevic over human rights, but not Saddam? Hmm, why would that be...ah yes...Republican president.
Who said I supported what we did to Milosevic? Did I say that? When did I say that? Surprisingly I found myself allied with congressman Keyes (a staunch republican) at the time, in firm opposition to this action. Just as I found it incredible when Clinton had us lobbing cruise missiles into various countries, with little pretext, which all turned out to be the failures I figured they would be. Clinton killed many innocents with all of these actions, and had little to show as results.
But why aren't you in support of Clinton? He certainly took a gamble with those actions. Hell he was aiming right for Osama BinLaden with one of those missile strikes. Actually it was Bush's dismissal of Clinton's warnings about BinLaden which led to some intelligence oversights, which led of course to 9-11. This means Clinton was more of a "man" than Bush. Not only could he figure out who our real enemies were, he didn't have to have 9-11 to launch an attack on terrorism.
So let's clear up any confusion on these matters. Clinton was an intelligent man, who could at least spot real dangers from false ones, but failed in providing real solutions when he resorted to a form of gunboat diplomacy. Bush is an ignorant man who has had little insight into the causes of our problems, and when he sees the direction they are coming from, uses no diplomacy at all. A tactless thug, he uses weapons of mass destruction (even if they are not nuclear, chemical, or biological) in place of planning for a peaceful, livable future. He certainly has had no problem wasting parts of the Constitution, while claiming he is waging a war for freedom.
gene90 writes:
Actually, Holmes, Schraf and I argued about this months ago. The United States gave aide to the Taliban for destroying opium in 2000. We did this because it was required by legislation...The aide we actually sent was food and humanitarian supplies, aimed at the Afghani people, not the Taliban themselves.
Now this is what I was talking about! This is real debate. You have an interesting position. In fact, it's why I started by saying that we didn't have a diplomatic office in Afghanistan. It is true they were not officially recognized, but positing that they we were some sort of enemy is inaccurate.
I'm not sure if you remember, but Powell and Bush made mention of how the Taliban were our "friends" during the period before we declared war on them. At the very least Cheney was involved with getting an oilpipeline working through them, which has nothing to do with humanitarian assistance to anyone. If the Taliban were not close buddies, they were definitely acquaintances which had a vague cloak of support from our government.
gene90 writes:
Oh please. The Taliban were a bunch of theology students from Pakistani Islamic schools that took over in 1996, with backing from the Pakistani intelligence service.
I agree wholeheartedly with this statement, though it's a little like saying Hitler and Co were a bunch of beerhall buddies. Those "theology students" were well armed and had a solid vision for the future that they were willing to impose on others. This made them much more dangerous than you make them sound.
gene90 writes:
I have yet to see any evidence at all that the US was even remotely involved, but that doesn't stop "blame America first" liberals from whining about it. You simply assume that if something bad happens we had something to do about it. Please. But note that if something bad did happen, it happened in '96 when the Taliban took over, and who was chasing skirts up and down the halls of the White House back in 1996?
We helped radicalize the general populace to get them to fight against the Soviets. We sold them a dream of a land where women did not go to school and hold positions of authority, which the soviets had them doing, where Islamic law was the law, against the idea of secular government which the soviets espoused. We even dismissed as unnecessary a democratic form of government, as long as it was basically capitalistic. We armed many radical Islamic groups, and as a near direct by-product helped Osama found Al-Queda (which is a totally different issue than the Taliban itself).
After the Soviet backed government collapsed, we ignored the power vacuum and the Afghanis as a whole, allowing for the radical Islamic forces we empowered to take charge. We could have stopped Pakistan's meddling, but we chose not to. This was an oversight of the Reagan, Bush Sr, and Clinton administrations. In fact it was set to continue as a Bush Jr oversight, until Al-Queda pulled 9-11, and the Taliban refused to oust Al-Queda leaders.
Your derision of Clinton as a negligent skirt-chaser, comes off as sophomoric, when you admittedly "have yet to see any evidence" which is available in books or older magazines on the subject (and not just leftwing rags).
gene90 writes:
True we wouldn't have ousted them (I would've liked to have seen them ousted by military force when they started the crackdown on Afghanistan's cultural history, which is when I first heard of them) but if we had tried I'm sure the anti-war crowd such as yourself would have protested it and once again have dedicated yourself to the opposition to human rights.
So after admitting what I said was true, you try to turn it around as being the anti-war crowd that would have made it so?
I heard of these lunatics long before they started blowing up statues. As conservatives like Bush, and liberals like Clinton, ignored the mass executions and repressive "reforms", the Islamic fundamentalists gained ground and that had me worried. When they finally began blowing up statues, as a failed measure to extort more money from the UN, it was already too late, but I understand your feelings. I too, wondered why nothing was done about it. I wondered even as Bush Jr came in and did nothing.
I doubt I would have supported a fullscale invasion, but I would have been for trying to deal with the issue, which none of these presidents had done. Not even diplomatic pressure had been brought to bear on their actions. Maybe if they had started blowing up oilpipelines Cheney would have done something quicker.
When 9-11 happened, it was no real surprise who was behind it or that the Taliban would support him. I was totally for our war in Afghanistan, and one of my major problems with the war in Iraq is that we never finished this MUCH MORE IMPORTANT CONFLICT. Its still not over. If we had dedicated as many troops and munitions to that war as we did to Iraq, perhaps things would be done by now.
gene90 writes:
Who I hope will be replaced by a democratic government *after* the War on Terror.
Uh yeah, and so why didn't we move into Pakistan, instead of Iraq? That would have been the most logical choice, if we were going to attack another country (that or North Korea). You think they aren't still trying to influence the Afghani government like Iran is trying to influence Iraq's? They certainly have WMDs and threaten India with them. Yet we have no condemnation of them.
But this just goes along with my overall analysis of your self-professed "ranting". Even if I accept your version of the facts, your logic does not seem sound. It is obvious, given the facts which you hold, that Iraq was not a necessary or appropriate target in our war on terror, at least nothing coming out of 9-11.
Building governments we like, should have been way down the list. One could have opposed this war for many many many reasons beyond being a leftwing radical.
schraf writes:
I seem to remember making the point to RedVento some months ago that it was likely that if we invaded Iraq and got rid of Saddam, it was likely that, sooner or later, it was very likely that a fundamentalist Muslim government would head up Iraq.
I believe most of the things on my list of questions about the war have come to pass as well. Where is RedVento now? Perhaps changing his ID to RedFaced? Frankly he should be just as upset to be reading gene90's comments, given his original position.
I'm also wondering what your (that is gene90's) position will be if/when Bush admits we aren't actually giving Iraqis democracy either, except as a means to allow oil to be exported and Xtian prosyletizers to be imported. Or that we weren't actually going to be saving the wealth for all Iraqis, but for the few powerful ones who will gain control of the wealth in the NEW CAPITALIST IRAQ! Are you willing to shift your position down a notch to "as long as those heathens were converted to Xtianity, and oil reserves were brought under rational control, I think the war was justified."
------------------
holmes
™ Version 4.2