Job Discussion Forums

[nomadder]

Iraq-central location. Probably knowing that they didn't have weapons of mass destruction made it safe to attack. Anybody for Iran next?

Right Country Club. Wonder how the Americans would like say Muslims coming and attacking their country because they didn't like the way they did things or because of various suspicions and half truths. Wait a minute didn't that already happen?

[Changjiang]

Shenyanggarry, I feel sorry for the terrorists as people that have been misled by an ideology of fear and fantasy. I wrote it that way deliberately, thank you. My countryman (Omar Khadr) that was taken into custody after a battle, subsequently murdered an American serviceman that approached to give first aid. They can keep him. Shaving off beards is pretty slight on the grievance scale, I'm more concerned about people that suicide bomb hospitals (ref the recent attack against the Red Cross in Baghdad).

As for executions, do you have any evidence? When I make statements I reference them, ie Pvt. J. Lynch, Mr. D. Pearl. It is no state secret how many were killed in Iraq by their own government over the last 30 years: 300,000 and how many died in the Iran/Iraq conflict: 300,000.

I have greater faith in the American government and people than totalitarian dictatorships and people in the grip of fantasist ideologies. If they are willing to prosecute an officer for firing a pistol near a terrorist under interrogation http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/007157F7-20E2-4948-BBC5-ABF4665A946F.htm
then I find it unlikely they will be executing in batch lots or infringing on human rights too badly. It is a shame they have decided to intern them in a dubious manner, I agree, perhaps we could see some marches concerned specifically with that?

Roger: Positive results are here: Posted: Fri Nov 28, 2003 12:31 am This is a long thread, it's easy to miss things. Thank you for favourably comparing me to Bush, that's the best thing anybody has said about me in a long time. And yes, I greatly enjoy rhetoric. The pleasure of a well-crafted argument that withstands the assaults of others is an exquisite one.

Iain, even the most strident human rights activist will usually acknowledge that the State must restrict some civil liberties of some individuals. Flagrant violations of other peoples rights usually puts people in this category. Yes, I'm certain mistakes have been made, are being made and will be made. It is the duty of citizens to call their government, and any government really, on these specific mistakes. Blanket condemnations of everything that a government has done will be interpreted as whining and ignored.

CountryClub, why the Iraqi's? They had a despotic regime that supported terror, actively sought weapons of mass destruction and initiated wars of aggression. The other countries you mention don't fit all those categories at once. Nobody can do everything at once, you make a list, and start with the high priority items first. As for imposed regime change being folly, the People of Germany, France and Japan may disagree with you. Read the Iraqi blogs and see what Iraqi people say. I like www.messopotamian.blogspot.com but there are many others. It would have been preferable to see the Iraqi's solve their own problems, but the last time that happened the US sold them out and they were slaughtered.

NoMadder: check this out: http://www.studentsforwar.org/ It's a scary world we live in.

My original point was that if the marchers in London wanted to really do something productive they could devote their time and energies to positive organizations and causes (Chief Wiggles toy drive, march against NK labour camps, support intervention in Zimbabwe, etc) rather than put on funny masks and call names.

I suspect we've pretty much covered all the points we're going to, but I'll answer one more round, then maybe we can move on and go back to teaching. If my points so far don't convince you, then that's a shame. I would suggest everyone (myself included) examine to what extent their personal feelings affect their arguments, rather than objective analysis of facts.

Regards,

[dduck]

Before you leave the debate, Rob, here's what I believe something for you to digest:

[arioch36]

Bush has been premature in his speculations. His announcement "an end to major hostilities" has come back to haunt him. And it will be a long time before we really know what will become of this forced regime change. So I don't know if anarchy or freedom will prevail. I will say that at least they have a very good chance.

Again, I agree with Bush before he was elected, the US should refrain from nation building.

SO what would have happened if the UN (France and Germany) had been more supportive of Insisting Iraq keep its promises. But the same empty words for 12 years..."now, Sadaam, you better be good this time..or else" I have seen the results when parents continue to threaten, but never discipline.

We see the same thing with Iran. Iran has now been shown to have been in material violation of nuclear agreements. Would the UN have done anything without the US demanding and pushing? Hopefully Iran will cooperate. But the US looks like the bad guy. Why?

What then, should the US have just let Iran continue on its course, doing nothing? How convenient for france and China, and the protestors, to have the US and Bush to blame for everything.

Why don't these people do anything productive, like protest what North Korea is doing (why didn't they ever protest the things that Sadaam did ?).

If the millions of people who have protested were to take all the time and money and put the attention on problems in Africa, there could be great changes. Mass tribal murders could be prevented if such people didn't look the other way. But these protestors don't really care about people, I think. I think they care more about the power kick they get by being able to bash someone (Bush, ex.).

so we have everyone crying over the gross violation of human rights happening in Cuba (not sure how to spell G. Bay) (uh, how many people have been executed by kangaroo court?) now lets compare that to the millions who were tortured maimed, raped, killed in Ruanda? Why don't these protestors work at stopping such things, which they could do? Why don't they protest against North Korea, perhaps even more horrific then Sadaam's reign, if possible, though there are fewer people.

So I don't really think that these protestors care less about the people in G Bay, Cuba. I really don't. I think they only care in that they can use it for a political point. Honestly, I may be wrong, butI really do. I don't think they truly care about human rights, but rather about political power for their ideology

[dduck]

[MixtecaMike]

struelle wrote

[Roger]

Changjiang,
I find your arguments scurrilous. Maybe George Bush should be grateful to O.B. Ladin and Saddam Hussein - they gave him his raison d'etre as the President of the World, pardon: USA.

[Dr.J]

Why Iraq?

Very good question. Why not Iraq? Is the answer, but then you have to ask 'why not North Korea?' and that isn't so easy to answer. Does anyone have a good reason why the US didn't go for north korea, if human rights abuses was their justificaiton for entering Iraq?

Protestors on the street may just be looking for a 'conscience fix', but someone has to tell the gov't that their actions were not done with the consent of their own people.

'Countries changing from within' - in a country that actively suppresses anti-government groups this is not going to happen.

There is no real excuse for the treatment of prisoners in guantanamo bay. They were sent there on purpose and classified as 'non-combatant criminals' or something just so they could be held indefinitely. How far to go with human rights during a war is a tricky question. But this is just wrong.

Finally, stop saying 'bush' and 'blair' as if they have sole control of their entire countries. If you factor in economic, military and political interests, there must be hundreds of people influencing government policies, I imagine Bush's individual power is much more limited than people seem to think.

[Roger]

The answer is simple: To invade North Korea takes a lot more courage than invading relatively isolated Iraq did. You can't just move up from Seoul to Pyongyang without arousing the anger of even your allied SOuth Koreans, let alone the Chinese in the North. There just is no hope for the USA or any other country to successfully take on North Korea - that's why those gangsters there get away with just about everything, including mass murder against their own people (starvation). Look at Iraqis - they don't seem to be emasculated even now after half a year of unpeaceful post-war crisis.

[guest of Japan]

I think I can answer the why not N. Korea question. Almost all of the heavy weapons in the N. Korean arsenal are pointed at Seoul just in case such a thing would happen. Just imagine what would happen to the world economy if Seoul were to be suddenly decimated.

[Changjiang]

Roger, if you find my arguments beneath contempt, perhaps you could post some logical ones of your own? Maybe with a link to source material?

As for why not NK, the population of Seoul is hostage to Norks artillery. It wouldn't be courageous to sacrifice millions of (ostensible) allies in an unprovoked attack.

Further, I'm quite certain the US can "take on" pretty much the rest of the world, should push come to shove. Unfortunately for the rest of us, they couldn't do it without nuclear weapons. Are you seriously arguing that they are cowards for not escalating this conflict up to the level of total war? Thank you for a lively exchange that demonstated your depth and breadth of understanding.

Yes, Iain, I am aware there is a difference between civil and human rights. (OT, I disagree with the categories expressed there, as I feel everyone has the right to self defence, and your quote feels the right to bear arms is a civil one. But it's from the UN, so what can you expect.) When I referred to "liberty" I meant in the sense of "free transit without undue restriction", so that yes, the US is violating the human rights of prisoners of G. Bay and shaving off their beards is a violation of their freedom to practice religion. In the balance, there are a number of Muslim clerics in Guantanomo, and beards grow back. Unlike tongues, of which the Iraqi government had a habit of collecting until recently.

Global Hitchhiker, perhaps it might have been a little cheaper to lift the sanctions and just buy the oil at market value?

Regardless, I'm going to stop answering these increasingly weak counter-arguments, it takes too long to compile something answering every allegation. Use google, look at some source material and try to think in a rigorous, logical manner, and you can come to your own conclusions.

Regards,

[dduck]

[dduck]

[arioch36]

As an American, I personally think we should just pull out all of our troops from South Korea. And then see how many anti-american protests there are because we left. "those damned Americans have abandoned us" What do we need Korea for?

The logic here is amazing. One person is down on America because they "attacked" iraq, and then is saying that America is weak "they lack courage" to take on Korea.

What is the argument? That taking on Korea would be a good sign of courage? So to prove himself to you, Bush needs to seek war against Korea? Is this what you are saying?

Are you now criticising Bush for seeking a multi-national solution to this problem? But I thought before you were saying how bad Bush was because he "acted alone" (which, of course, is not true)

The logic argument from another is that America is there for the oil profits. What monetary profit has America gotten? It has cost America money, not gained them money. And there was plenty of oil for America to import before, during, and after the attack. Show me something that shows how America overall has gained by this escalation of the Pesian Gulf War.

The logic of "Bush, Bush, Bush". Uhm, Republicans and democrats backed this war.

I'll issue the same challenge to all these men of high logic...why didn't you protest similar actions in what was Yugolsavia? Why didn't you attack Clinton, and say such things about him?

Again, i suggest because you don't really care about truth or logic or principles, but rather, you just want to find anything to smear someone you don't like.

(Yes, similar to what the republicans tried to do to Clinton [who did do some personally pathetic things], but the american people rejected such tacticas as the "antiBush people on this thread espouse)

[dduck]