Unfair

shels

I just want to say that i think everyone who slags of bush and blair are wrong. yes i do think that america are trying to control almost everything which i dont agree with but somethings i support him. if he hadnt invaded iraq all we would hear about on the news was saddam is still telling them all to go to hell. saddam only gave in when there was a huge army right next store to him. he lies and kills and rapes people yet bush speaks up for democracy and people moan about it. i would rather live in a country that bush runs instead of a country that someone like saddam runs. lets think about the iraq people and move on. the world is a better place without saddam and may it continue to get better. that means watch out north korea your next

seamus

Troll.

Personally, I had no problem with the idea of ousting Saddam. It was the methods and the lying. They claimed that he was a threat, used the cover of "weapons of mass destruction" to rush into a war that could have been much better planned and much more efficiently carried out.
Saddam's secret service are gone, a select few people are safe from persecution, but other than that, the Iraqi people are still no better off now than they were before Saddam.
Now Bush and Blair are essentially saying, "Oh dear, sorry there folks, seems there were no WOMD after all, but sure we got that sucker, now God and his glory can...blah blah blah". Em....that's not ok. That's like taking someone out of their home and imprisoning them because you believe they plan to murder their neighbours, but then claiming that even though they had no such plans, it was ok because he beats his kids from time to time. If Bush had come out at the very beginning and said that he was interested in liberating the Iraqi people, he probably would have received a little more support. But not much. It was always painfully obvious that Bush was interested in two things; Oil and Revenge. So he conjoured up a story (WOMD) to go to war, and had the humanitarian cause (liberation) to fall back on in case his original alibi fell on it's face. Which it has.

I don't believe that "We are bringing democracy to these people" is a justification for anything. Who are we to say that democracy is the best thing? No-one is in any way objective on this issue. Some people like living in a dictatorship, benign or otherwise. Who are George Bush and his oil buddies to say "Nah, you're wrong, democracy is better, you'll see, we'll give it to you whether you like it or not.". As much as we enjoy living in a democracy, doesn't mean another society will.

Hobbes

did we need to open up another thread for this?

Ps. the world is not a better place. Explain how?

Klaus

Firstly, Iraq under Sadam, before the first gulf war, was described by the UN as an emerging first world nation. Female literacy rates increased ten fold, iraq had the best health system in the region, which was publicly funded through oil revenues and average incomes were increasing. Then the military campaign was designed to destory all infrastructure in the country. They blew up all the power plants, to weaken the enemy, and then denied them the money to rebuild after the war was over through sanctions. Not to mention complicitly supporting Sadam's regime after he had been removed from Kuwait, through refusing to support a local iraqi uprising.

Secondly, it seems a dubious assumption that America will actually support democracy in Iraq now. 60% of the population are sheite muslims, whose inclinations would possibly lead to a more repressive muslim regieme in the country, while also aligning iraq with the dreaded Iran.

It is unfortunately large amounts of self interest couched in altruistic language. Sadam being removed from power is an excellent thing. What is not is the means we have chosen to carry out such acts. The US has no desire to create an ideal world, only a desire for whatever is seen to serve its own best interests. A UN that is able to enforce its own charter of Human rights would be nice, but it is an organisation that is made toothless through, again, international confict over best interests.

mr_angry

Wow. Could this be an attempt to troll? On a Society board??? My goodness. What is the world coming to...?

chill

Originally posted by mr_angry
Wow. Could this be an attempt to troll? On a Society board??? My goodness. What is the world coming to...?

Supporting the Bush/Iraq action is a risky view to express here. I got banned for it, and he'll have to be very careful how he argues his view, as I have to.

Moriarty

Originally posted by Klaus
Firstly, Iraq under Sadam, before the first gulf war, was described by the UN as an emerging first world nation.

Iraq was basically bankrupt before the first gulf war. For such a large oil-producing country, that took some doing.

mr_angry

Originally posted by chill
Supporting the Bush/Iraq action is a risky view to express here. I got banned for it, and he'll have to be very careful how he argues his view, as I have to.

Everyone should be careful as to how they argue their view, regardless of what their stance on the subject is.

It was how this person argued their view that led me to believe it may be a troll - an instant blast of "I'm right and you're wrong". Perhaps I'll be proved wrong... :eek:

gandalf

Originally posted by chill
Supporting the Bush/Iraq action is a risky view to express here. I got banned for it, and he'll have to be very careful how he argues his view, as I have to.

You didn't get banned for your views you got banned because you didn't elaborate or discuss your views with others.

Infact you were banned because you didn't back up your statements when requested and it was your ignorant response to that PM that guaranteed the ban. The only reason you are back is because DeVore asked me to give you a 2nd chance.

So please get off your martyr horse ok.

Gandalf.

claidheamh

Originally posted by shels
he lies and kills and rapes people yet bush speaks up for democracy and people moan about it. i would rather live in a country that bush runs instead of a country that someone like saddam runs. lets think about the iraq people and move on. the world is a better place without saddam and may it continue to get better. that means watch out north korea your next

Since you brought it up, lets think about people for a moment. Lets think about a group of folks BEGGING for help in initiating a democracy. Currently these folks are under a militant, highly oppressive regime. They want out. They ask... No they plead with GWB and the US government for assistance.

The country-Taiwan.

Why hasn't GWB, "sown the seeds and spread the manure of his democracy to Taiwan?"

Any guesses?

He not only ignored Taiwan, he did one better. He told them it was in their best interest to stay under Communist China's control.

I remember a question on NPR a month or so ago. It went something like this:

When confronted with the question, "Why Mr. President, is it last week you stated all countries seeking freedom and democracy, should have it. Yet when Taiwan requested backing for a free democratic election, you said it was not in their best interest?"

The question went unanswered. Not really surprising when one figures the US gets a lot of help (for now) with N. Korea from China. The US isn't, "chomping at the bit," (to use a good 'ol boy phrase), to engage N. Korea...It would likely be very ugly, so will not happen in the near or distant future.

IMO-The US will spread democracy so long as it is lucrative. People bemoan this because, most times the neediest aren't the highest on the list, and the one's who want democracy are ignored. This is Democracy fueled by greed, not human rights.

Zombrex

Originally posted by shels
he lies and kills and rapes people yet bush speaks up for democracy and people moan about it.

There is a bank robery on in a big city bank. There is a violent unpredictable man holding hostages. The police have surround the building. The bank robber is getting edgy. He has shot a security guard and is threatening to shoot the hostages.

Suddenly after only a few minutes of negotiation, with the robber seeming calm, the SWAT team burst in. A barrage of shots are fired killing a number of hostages and members of the SWAT team. The bank robber it shot and killed in the fire fight.

The man was unstable and volient. He was threatening to do a lot of damage, and had proven that he was prepared to kill.

The SWAT team say they had to go in, that there was no other way, and even though they had killed some of the hostages they insist that if they hadn't acted the man could have hurt more hostages (even though the SWAT team ended up doing that themselves).

Did the SWAT team do more harm than good? Who knows? Not if the robber was about to shot all his hostages. But that would be a bit stupid, because the SWAT team would just burst in a kill him if he started letting off rounds into skulls.

Is this the way the SWAT team would really handle a situation like this? No of course not. They would have used force only as a last resort if there was absolutlely no other option and if they were sure the robber had gone completely mad and was about to kill all his hostages. They would have tried to keep the situation as calm as possible, and tried everything to avoid blood shed, or putting the hostages in danger.

If the police had dealth with a situation like that in the shot first manner there would be a pubic out cry.

So why do we fight wars like this??

It is not that the situation in Iraq was dealt with. It is the way that it was dealt with.

jank

who helped put saddam come to power!?
people are quick to forget the reason for all this mess in the first place

Moriarty

Originally posted by jank
who helped put saddam come to power!?
people are quick to forget the reason for all this mess in the first place

So? People change, governments change, intrests (both national and personal) change. Since the US backed the regime in the past does that bar them from ever criticising or taking action against them in the future? If not, how long must a country have distanced itself from another before its allowed to object? Five years? Twenty? Fifty?

In either case, this is rather off-topic for the thread; Americas previous backing of the regime had little or no effect on the decision to go to war.

bonkey

Originally posted by claidheamh
He not only ignored Taiwan, he did one better. He told them it was in their best interest to stay under Communist China's control.

Thats blatantly untrue.

The American position regarding Taiwan has always been that they oppose unilateral action by anyone which would upset the current situation.

The US wish to see a resolution, but they wish to see a bilateral resolution.

Taiwan holding a referendum on the issue in question was a unilateral move. The US were obliged to oppose it based on their stance.

I find it funny that anyone could equate Iraq and Taiwan - one a case where the US came under massive criticism for acting unilaterally, and the other where the US is being criticised for opposing a unilateralist, destabilising action.

jc

claidheamh

Call me a liar if you will, but it is my perspective. Read this if you're interested. At least I'll back-up my opinions...uhm..lies...whatever you wish to call them. China does not see the US as impartial.

The US doesn't want to risk economic sanctions between itself and Taiwan/China.$$$

A country is acting unilateraly in the name of spreading democracy. This statement could be applied to both the US and Taiwan. One engagement the US undertook, one the US opposes.

Iraq isn't destabilized now? What would you prefer to call it's current situation? "Site Under Construction, thanks to US tax-dollars at work"?

The US is spreading "freedom," just ask George. Why can't Taiwan? I do not see the divergence. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

If Taiwan proceeds in it's current direction, do you honestly think China would invade? The US has equipped them (Taiwan) to the teeth.

The way I see it, the US can be completely politically hypocrytical when the almighty dollar is at stake. The US will stand-up and unilateraly 'do the right thing' for one country, and ignore another...They stand to make money upon the building of one country but lose money upon the building of another.

It is the blatant hypocrasy which I find pathetic. If the US is gonna, 'do the right thing,' Then they need to do the right thing across the board, economics aside. If they cannot, then they should keep their noses out of everyone else's asses.

Redleslie

Originally posted by Moriarty
Iraq was basically bankrupt before the first gulf war. For such a large oil-producing country, that took some doing.

Yeah any other country would've come out of an eight year long war no bother at all.

Hobbes

Originally posted by bonkey
Thats blatantly untrue.

The American position regarding Taiwan has always been that they oppose unilateral action by anyone which would upset the current situation.

Sitting on the fence basically. What would he do if push came to shove though?

Also although it is not mentioned there a lot of US companies actually conform to Chinese laws regarding Taiwan.

For example any US product sold that makes a reference to Taiwan without stating "PRC" as the country is automatically banned from doing business with China. Considering China is a huge market in comparision to the US they tend to follow it.

bonkey

Originally posted by claidheamh
Call me a liar if you will, but it is my perspective.

I'm not calling you a liar....I'm saying that the perspective that he ignored Taiwan is incorrect.

They weren't ignored.....they were treated in exactly the same way as the US has treated China when it made unilateralist moves in the past....by being told that the US would not like to see such a thing happen.

The US has not changed its position...what has changed is that instead of China threatening the status quo its Taiwan.

So consider this...lets say that Taiwan go ahead with this referendum. China, as a result, starts being more aggressive towards the Taiwanese as a result of the Taiwanese having broken the status quo. The Chinese decide to take back "their" island.

Such a situation is a realistic possibility, and you are saying that the US should risk China invading Taiwan, and possibly ending up in a war with China (or just abandoning Taiwan to the Chineses to avoid war, and having a Cold War instead). They should do this because anything less is "ignoring" the Taiwanese.

So risking war with China, or losing Taiwan to the Chinese to avoid war would be preferable to you than encouraging that both sides reach an agreement, rather than acting unilaterally. not only that, but to do anything less is "ignoring" the Taiwanese.

Sorry, but the US isn't ignoring anyone.

jc

claidheamh

QUOTE]Originally posted by bonkey
Thats blatantly untrue...[/QUOTE]

To be untrue is to be misleading or to lie.

lie-to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive

Therefore,
liar-one that tells lies.

Originally posted by bonkey
I'm not calling you a liar....

Yes, you did.
Please don't write artless calumniation. We disagree, so be it.

So consider this...lets say that Taiwan go ahead with this referendum. China, as a result, starts being more aggressive towards the Taiwanese as a result of the Taiwanese having broken the status quo. The Chinese decide to take back "their" island.

Such a situation is a realistic possibility, and you are saying that the US should risk China invading Taiwan, and possibly ending up in a war with China (or just abandoning Taiwan to the Chineses to avoid war, and having a Cold War instead). They should do this because anything less is "ignoring" the Taiwanese.

So risking war with China, or losing Taiwan to the Chinese to avoid war would be preferable to you than encouraging that both sides reach an agreement, rather than acting unilaterally. not only that, but to do anything less is "ignoring" the Taiwanese. [/B]

Bingo! Give that man a cigar!

IMO-
This foreign dispute is either the US's business or it isn't. If it is US business, then they should back Taiwan, since it should be noted they have promulgated a current crusade for world democracy.

If it isn't US business, they should stop with this crusade, and let other countries iron out there own difficulties.

I agree with you, it is funny that the US can be criticized for acting unilateraly to spread love, peace, and democracy while being beguilingly impartial to other's attempts at free referendum. Only the US can put itself in that position as well as it has.

I'm sure you'll disagree, but like I posted, it's only my opinion.

bonkey

Originally posted by claidheamh

lie-to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
...
Therefore,
liar-one that tells lies.
...
Yes, you did.
[/b]

See the bit of your defiition I've underlined for you?

Show me where I implied that you knew in advance that what you were saying was untrue,and that you intended to deceive please.....

Otherwise accept the fact that I did not call you a liar...I said that what you posted was not true - the US isn't abandoning Taiwan or ignoring their pleas (which they aren't actually making either from what I can see...although I'm open to correction on that). The US is taking the same line it has always taken which is that it wants to see a settlement peacefully reached, which both sides

People on this board had for qute some time the inability to distinguish between "wrong" and "lying". I spent long enough stamping that out that I'm pretty sure I know the difference.

If it is US business, then they should back Taiwan, since it should be noted they have promulgated a current crusade for world democracy.

"Crusade for world democracy". Right. Thats why they've attacked an entire two nations of all of the non-democractic ones, and have stopped treating non-democratic Pakistan as a member of the Axis of Evil, and instead as a best ally. Its because they want to spread democracy. Riiight.

Afghanistan was attacked to oust terrorists and a terrorist-supporting government which posed a clear and present danger to the US - and allegedly to others.

The same logic was the initial premise for going into Iraq - that Hussein posed a very real threat. This may not have proven to be true, but thats unfortunately not really the issue.

Notice a trend? In each case, the military action was taken - rightly or wrongly - against a nation which the US maintained presented a real threat to the US. It wasn't because they were both non-democratic regimes, no more than it was because they are Muslim nations.

Risking the starting of a war with China or between the two Chinas is not, however, interpretable as a defensive or protectionist measure at all.

If it isn't US business, they should stop with this crusade, and let other countries iron out there own difficulties.

The US' position in the situation is that this is exactly what it wants - that the two involved countries iron out their disagreements peacefully. Without the US' protection, the nation of Taiwan would long ago have ceased to exist, and it would have ceased to exist in the wake of a military action by mainland China against them.

Even the US' speeches on the subject have made it very clear that the US wants Taiwan accepted as a nation, and supports its quest for democracy, but recognises that any advances in this area must be made in collaboration and agreement with mainland China.

Then again, when you admit to favouring the possibility of war from unilateral action over trying for a peaceful bilateral settlement.....its easy to understand why you think the US is abandoning Taiwan.

jc

Agent Smith

here's my €0.02......





the united states have a lot to blame regarding the state of the world at this present moment.



BUT....



they are what is called "the lesser of to evil's"


which is worse?

An evil dictator who gassed and mamed his own people

or

a man who is doing WHAT HE BELIVES will make the world a saffer place...




thats my €0.02 cents

Zombrex

a man who is doing WHAT HE BELIVES will make the world a saffer place...

and proceeded to kill thousands of civilians, destablise a country, and inspire terrorism for years to come ... all to gain a foot hold in a region hundreds of miles from the country he is representing, and to win an election.

ummmm ... what were the choices again?

why do we have to pick either of them ... it is not an either or situation. There are other ways to run foreign policy.

bonkey

Originally posted by agent smith

which is worse?

An evil dictator who gassed and mamed his own people
or
a man who is doing WHAT HE BELIVES will make the world a saffer place...

Why not phrase the question more fairly, so that you compare like with like, rather than phrasing it in such a way as to ensure that only one option is really a valid answer?

Such as :

1) A ruler who did what he felt was necessary to rule his nation
or
2) a man who did what he believed would make the world a better place.

Or you could go with :

1) A dictator who gassed and maimed his own people
or
2) A president elected amidst scandal who killed, wounded, and deprived of himan rights people of other nations.

You'll notice I dropped the word "evil" in all cases because I couldnt' come up with a balanced equivalent that I could apply to Bush without having to suffer through mass explosions of outrage posted here....so I went with the balanced option of not applying such monikers to either.

Besides, "evil" is classification - it would imply that we have pre-judged the person in question, which would then make a mockery of asking the question in the first place. It would be like asking which is worse, the man we've decided is guilty, or the one we've decided is blameless. Bit pointless asking that one really.

jc

claidheamh

I apologize for taking offense.

And thanks for the debate. I rather enjoy it.

Now if you'll excuse me, Mardis Gras is this weekend, so I must make preparations (buy beads, beads, and more beads...oh and don't forget the Laphroaig).

bonkey

Originally posted by claidheamh
I apologize for taking offense.

And thanks for the debate. I rather enjoy it.

Accepted, and glad you enjoy it.

Now if you'll excuse me, Mardis Gras is this weekend, so I must make preparations (buy beads, beads, and more beads...oh and don't forget the Laphroaig).

Enjoy.

jc

shels

just wanted to comment on a few things. i got called a troll just because i have an opinion. thats what i hate about all these anti war people they believe in free spreech but just cause i dont agree withthem i get called a troll shows how stupid they are. they want everyone to agree with them. balls and they can all go kiss my bell end. george w bush is the man and my all those anti war people start complaining about something else cause its getting old and god knows they have nothing else to do bunch of wasters. haha to all those who disagree with me he is a two fingered salute to you all

gandalf

shels has just earned a one week ban from that little outburst. He had the opportunity to discuss his position as an adult and he chose to respond like a spoilt teenager.

Any more posts of this quality here, no matter what your views are and you will get the same treatment.

Gandalf.