22 Feb
2003
22 Feb
'03
3:50 p.m.
Try to read a little history or have you not heard of the
War of 1812 with Canada, the invasion of Cuba, the
various sorties with Mexico, not to mention the numerous
other wars that weren't quite so close as Canada or
Mexico.
As for wars on it's neighbors, Iraq was a client state of
the US in it's war with Iran, and the Kurds were gassed
with supplies from the US. Kuwait likely wouldn't have
happened if Saddam hadn't got suckered by Albright into
thinking the US wouldn't do anything if they attacked
Kuwait over oil piracy issues, and the poor Shiites and
Kurds were suckered into thinking the US would support
them in a rebellion against Saddam to their tragic regret.
And you can believe it that most canadians feel their
health-care is under attack by US med corporations,
Our industries are under attack and have been decimated
by "free" trade, and our softwood lumber industries and
water resources are also under attack, not to mention our
cultural industries. But one takes that into account when
you are in the same bed as a hungry giant.
And you better believe the ordinary Mexican is no more
convinced of the benevolence of the corporate-run US
administartion despite the sucking up of the Fox
government.
And those so-called agreements a defeated Iraq agreed
to under the UN were also binding on the US and which
the US and it's lackey Blair are willing to ignore if the UN
doesn't go along with its take on things.
The UN was set up to prevent attacks by nations on
other nations following the horror of WWII. The US has
been involved in every major conflict since that time.
The UN has laws that would be against an attack on
Iraq. Do only US-made laws apply ?
Reminds me of Double Speak from Orwells "1984"
Lawrence
On 22 Feb 2003, , Al Hartman wrote:
Personal attack.
And what contradiction.
When has the U.S. attacked it's neighbor?
Last I heard Canada and Mexico are unmolested. And
before you bring up stuff that's 100's of years old,
you can't address stuff that old with todays mores.
Iraq attacked it's neighbors in modern times, with
modern weapons.
None that I can see.
You'd like there to be one, so that you can attack me
personally.
It's a common tactic of people who are unable to have
intelligent discussions of issues.
Instead of discussing the issue or facts, and keeping
the discussion on that level. You attack the person
directly.
I could be the world's worst idiot. But, if I was
speaking a truth... What difference does that make?
I could be a drooling idiot and point up and burble
"Sky.. Blue..."
The fact that I could be an idiot, doesn't change the
fact that sky is indeed blue.
So keep the discussion on the facts, rather than
making personal attacks. When you do this, you rob
yourself of any power, and ability to have your
opinions considered and respected, and convince people
that they must be indeed, invalid since you needed to
make a personal attack.
lgwalker@ mts.net
From: Vintage
Computer Festival <vcf(a)siconic.com>
Based on the off-list exchanges we had, your "proof"
was most likely merely jingoistic non-sequiturs
that Sridhar would have probably found as stupid as
I did.
Being that you haven't read said reply, you can't
possibly make a comment on them. I notice, as usual
you stoop to personal attacks rather than discuss the
issue.
But, how
can you quibble with the concept that
it's wrong for a county
to attack it's neighbors, or to build up
offensive
weapons?
Look, every time you open your mouth you contradict
yourself. When will you realize that everything
you ascribe as the reasons for which we want
to go to Iraq, the US has committed the same? Are
you seriously this dense? This is typical of the mindset of control
freaks:
everyone else is a child and must be punished if
they don't do as we tell them. I consider this
deviant psychological behavior.
Personal Attack yet again.
Do you understand a basic concept?
It's called "Being one's word".
When Iraq AGREED to disarm, to not own or develop
weapons of mass destruction, and then broke those
agreements. That's where the problem lies.
It's not about "control" or being a "control freak".
Adults make agreements and keep them.
That's the only way world affairs can work. Treaties
and agreements have to be kept, and there must be
trust that they will be.
When they are broken, they must be enforced. Otherwise
the entire house of cards based on agreements and
"word" collapses.
That leads to chaos.
Nobody
wants war, but in case such as this... This
war will prevent the deaths of millions. Not only
by Iraq and Hussein, but by others in the future
who will take this example to embolden themselves
to do evil without fear of retribution.
Contradiction. No it's not. It's in our power to change
our
President's ill pursuits because we elected the
bastard and we can take him down.
I got news for you. Our President is not doing ANY
"ill pursuits". He has the highest sustained approval
rating of ANY President in history.
He is doing the right thing most of the time.
I got that you don't like what he's doing, and don't
agree with it. It doesn't make him wrong.
He's OUR servant, and our problem. Saddam
Hussein
is someone else's tyrant, not outs.
No. He surrendered to us in a war. He has made
agreements with our Government AND the U.N. that he is
not keeping.
He attacked two of our allies, was defeated and he
must disarm to keep the terms of the treaty.
He is not doing that, and that makes it our business.
Sticking our heads in the sand (or up a bodily
orifice) as you would have us do, does not make the
problem go away, and emboldens others to break
agreements or to attack their neighbors without fear
of reprisals.
Simple: we are not the police force of the world.
People would like us not to be.
I'm not sure where I stand on this.
Generally, I'm happy when we take principled stands
against terrorism, and agression against neighbors.
Of course, logic eludes you, Al.
Not at all.
I would recommend you go to college, take some World
History and Civics courses. Also Ethics.
You hold some naive opinions. That sound good on the
face, but don't hold up under rigorous scruitiny.
They only seem good on the face, but when you extend
the consequences of what you would like to see happen
out on a timeline, you see that they don't actually
bring about the things you claim to stand for.
"Peace at any cost" is a misused statement. Often, the
price of peace IS war. Perhaps it wouldn't seem so
contradictory if you consider that in this context...
"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure..."
If there were some science fictional way to look at
alternate timelines where we could see the different
outcomes for different decisions, perhaps there'd be
some data for you that might convince you of this.
Having this stand that I hold, takes some faith. It
takes trust that there are things that never happened
that we will never hear about, because they were
deterred.
If every country or terrorist made a press release
saying...
"I was going to do X, but didn't do it because I was
afraid that the U.N., the U.S., the U.K., etc... Would
punish me for doing it..."
Then, you'd see how well deterrence works.
There was an article in Time Magazine (or it may have
been Newsweek) fairly recently that said, that when
the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam, it emboldened all
sorts of actions.
Within three years of the pull-out, American Embassies
were attacked, Cuba stepped up it's actions in South
America, and more.
Backing down has consequences.
It's a tough row to hoe, and not as simplistic as you
make it.
Al