Same would be true of a 'regime that uses WMDs'... yet that made your list.:)
It's only a reason against war if the regime won't use them otherwise. Saddam had plainly demonstrated against the Kurds he was the type to use them anyways.
I wouldn't say it was 'alright'. But its not a reason to go to WAR.
I would say it is a reason, it just shouldn't be the only reason as you seem to imply. I said it was only one of 4 reasons so your skirting very close to making a strawman of it.
But my point is that the US didn't get into Rwanda and other similiar situations.
My point is that they SHOULD HAVE!
Going into Iraq may have headed off a coup, but we don't even know that there was going to be one...
There's only 2 options, there was or was not going to be one. If there wasn't, then leaving Saddam in power meant letting him continue everything he was doing, which is unacceptable. If there was going to be one, the results would be unacceptable. History has repeatedly shown what happens when a repressive dictator is overthrown. When the dictator was of a minority, the coup kills off that minority. Substitute Hutu and Tutsi for Sunni-Shia and you've got what to expect. Substitute Serb and Bosnian for Sunni-Shia and you've got what to expect.
My point was that your shopping list is biased... If I wanted to make a shopping list of 'issues' with North Korea in mind, "commands one of the worlds largest standing army in the world"
Then please criticize the list, not the fact that I answered your issue with a list. I'll return the favor by pointing out the obvious fact that "having the largest standing army in the world" belongs on the reasons NOT to invade North Korea.
Saddam wasn't involved with 'The Terrorists with a capital T'. Sure he was awful himself, but had nothing to do with 9/11. You then tried to point out some link between Iraq and some minister in the government.
I pointed out Abu Nidal, not "some minister", he was the most wanted terrorist in the world at that point in time. I'm not sure what kind of terrorism you require before you capitalize it if one of the most wanted man in the world doesn't count. Of course, if you are content that Saddam's terrorists weren't from Al-Qaeda then I guess it was alright. I disagree though.
Oh, so we're spending 10 billion a month because a Shia coup would have been 'worse'? Give me a break. If they'd undergone a coup, we'd have applauded the new regime. Eventually if the bloodshed got REALLY bad we'd start criticizing them... like Rwanda... but do little of real consequence.
So if a Shia coup really went bad, like Rwanda, you'd expect that little of real consequence would be done by the outside world. I agree completely with that analysis. I disagree with the part where somehow that situation is better than the current one.
Seems a bit of a cheat if you get to define the shopping list to fit the country you are interested in.
I was, of course responding to your query about why Iraq and not some other regime. There isn't much of a debate if you consider answering your questions 'cheating', now is there?
if they were really concerned about standing up to bullies on other people's behalf they'd have done something in
And in Iraq's case, we waited an awful long time before invading. We waited so long that taking him out caused more damage than he was likely to cause had he been left alone.
I agree that America waited too long, they should have gone to Baghdad and removed Saddam after Kuwait. If you think leaving Saddam alone was still a better plan, you need to review my 'cheat' list up thread.
The genocide was decades ago. We repulsed the kuwait invasion and that issue had been closed for years. By the time we invaded there were no WMDs...
Yes, dictators will be dictators, at least they don't grow up into teenagers.
Seriously though, your saying what exactly? He committed genocide, used WMD on his neighbors and his own people, annexed sovereign nations and gave official government offices to terrorists, but that was the old Saddam. Just what changes exactly had been made to curtail him from continuing such abuses other than diminishing his military strength?
...I'm sure if we topple the Whitehouse and give it a good enough shake we'll find some terrorist sympathizer in there somewhere too.
Your exposing your bias here. Your statement is analogous to saying that shop lifters are just like serial killers because they've both broken laws. Bush has been bad, but don't be so ignorant as to even pretend like Saddam is an entirely different category of BAD.
Plunging the nation into civil war, and destroying the infrastructure has hardly done the Iraqi citizens any favors. I'm sure they don't miss Saddam much, but it wasn't worth the price we've paid and the price they've paid to get rid of him when they did.
Well, history makes that pretty impossible to know. But do the mental exercise of what a successful internal coup of Saddam might look like instead. If you think the sectarian violence we have now is bad, the only way an internal Shia coup would've been less violent is if all the Sunni's were already dead or in refugee camps outside Iraq.
I was opposed to the war in Iraq from the beginning, because I knew we were going to screw it up.
Me too, and the Bush administration screwed things up pretty good. Listening to Hitchens though I have a very hard time denying that Iraq wasn't more screwed up before and that at a minimum the current war lessened the power vacuum that an internal civil war in Iraq would've left.
the underlying motivations were not to "stand up to a bully" as you describe it, but to liquidate a former asset who had subsequently proven inconvenient.
Motivations and descriptions aside, the net result of removing Saddam are positive, which is all I am trying to express. Calling the American's bullies for removing Saddam is disingenuous given that.
American military interventions... have historically done nothing but encourage the self-interest of a global American military empire.
That's a load in my opinion. Where does trillions of dollars of debt and the lose of much global good-will fit into America's self interests? Empires colonize for profits. They don't just waste trillions of dollars and then hand the territory back over to the locals.
American intervention stunts the development of the UN, the correct entity for interventions,
And the UN, being the correct entity for intervention, has what kind of record in stopping atrocities? The American record is poor, but the UN's do nothing approach has, on a whole, been worse.
Given our penchant for making things worse, I think we should generally remain uninvolved...
I agree with this. I would add the exception though for situations that are already or eminently horrific, in which case as bad as military intervention may be it is the lesser evil. I would consider Saddam's rule in Iraq such an instance.
As for standing up to "bullies," by which I suppose you mean a combination of aggressive leaders and tyrants -- someone should do it, but it should be someone local.
I agree that is the ideal circumstance. The problem with Iraq was more than just local though as he was invading his neighbors as well. At that point the problem becomes much less 'local'.
how is a society going to develop a stable democracy when its people don't even have enough organization to kick out their own dictators?
Well, it's a mess of course. I agree with you, and it is exactly why I was against the war from the outset as well. The thing I've learned from listening to Hitchens is that Iraq was going to be an even worse mess eventually anyways. Any internal overthrow would most likely see the borders of Iraq's neighbors expanding in and even worse sectarianism than we are seeing now. For all the faults with the American and British presence in Iraq, they are doing a better job of keeping outside influences at bay than a totally local coup could ever have.
If they were really concerned about standing up to bullies on other people's behalf they'd have done something in Liberia, Angola, Tibet, Rwanda, North Vietnam, and a dozen other places that were in far more oppressive regimes than Saddam's. But they aren't and suggesting they are indicates you are either a liar or an idiot.
Show me another regime that meets all four of the following: 1.Committed genocide(the kurds) 2.Used WMD(the Iranians) 3.Not only invaded, but absorbed another sovereign nation as part of itself.(Kuwait). 4.Supported terrorism(Abu Nidal in an Iraqi government office)
The nations you mentioned met one or two of the above, but all of them. Saddam wasn't just a bad guy, he was a monster without rival.
When exactly did Iraq knock the books out of our hands?
Iraq "knocked the books" out of Kuwait's hands. Iraq "knocked the books" out of Iran's hands. Iraq "knocked the books" out of the Kurd's hands. Saddam used chemical weapons for the last two, as well. Are you against people standing up to bullies on other people's behalf?
Their opponents however, who are trying to do everything to prevent them from producing A-bombs in the first place, are not to be trusted that much, because they (America, Israel) are the ones that have started wars in the last couple of years (the latter only in "defense", but I think they/their PR may be able to produce one such "defense" case quickly).
Part of the reason to not want Iran getting nukes is that such a condition might be the kind of case were extreme minded Israelis would use theirs. Israel's survival has depended strongly on the notion of being pre-emptive when war is imminent. In '67 they succeeded because they hit first. In '73 they took a licking because the Arabs did. The biggest(and many say only) thing keeping Iran from going to war with Israel is that they would lose. Gaining nukes would go a long way to evening the odds. You can accuse me of taking sides all you like, but it is in everyone's best interests that the odds remain strongly in Israel's favor. Iran's leadership isn't the only group of Arabs who'd readily go to war if they felt they could win. To prevent war, history shows that both sides need to be unlikely to gain anything through war. It's also shown the most certain way to accomplish that is to have the most peaceful side carry the biggest stick.
The Canadian government should just nationalize the last mile cables and have a government agency responsible for maintaining and upgrading the lines.
Hmmm, in essence it would be nationalizing the internet. I hear Italy and Germany did great things by nationalizing newspapers some time back in the 40's. What's the worst that could happen by nationalizing the modern day equivalent?
I've actually listened to Percy Schmeiser speak... it was a heartwrenching 20 minutes that left a real impression on me. It's just my opinion, but I'd have a real, real hard time believing his speech was a "put on" and that he was out to cheat Monsanto from the outset. Some points from his talk that you might not be aware of:
Perhaps something your not aware of, again, from the supreme court findings:
However, the appellants in this case actively cultivated canola containing the patented invention as part of their business operations. Mr. Schmeiser complained that the original plants came onto his land without his intervention. However, he did not at all explain why he sprayed Roundup to isolate the Roundup Ready plants he found on his land; why he then harvested the plants and segregated the seeds, saved them, and kept them for seed; why he next planted them; and why, through this husbandry, he ended up with 1030 acres of Roundup Ready Canola which would otherwise have cost him $15,000. In these circumstances, the presumption of use flowing from possession stands unrebutted.
He deliberately sprayed round up on his own crop while it was still growing and then saved what survived for seed. Farmers know round-up kills everything, so either he wanted to kill a few acres of his own crop or he wanted to take the fullest advantage of any blow over from his neighbor's land. I'm not inclined to believe he just wanted to destroy his own crop for kicks.
You have a farmer who has spent the last, say, 50 years, manually culling and selecting seeds from his best crops to engineer that crop to his liking. Then his neighbor moves in and plants Roundup Ready seeds. At first there's no problem, but gradually the neighbor's crops will pollinate our farmer's land. Well, naturally this is to be expected, and our farmer would normally just select around the intruders. The problem is, Monsanto takes it upon themselves to sue our farmer and force him to stop using the same farming technique he's been using his entire life.... It's people like Percy Schmeiser who have suffered for it.
That's what I thought, but my dad was again better informed on the matter than me. When I mentioned Monsanto suing a guy for exactly the reasons you describe he was already aware of the details. My dad farmed in Manitoba so news from a small farm just over in Saskatchewan is always relevant. Here's the details from the Canadian Supreme court case.
Schmeiser never purchased Roundup Ready Canola nor did he obtain a licence to plant it. Yet, in 1998, tests revealed that 95 to 98 percent of his 1,000 acres of canola crop was made up of Roundup Ready plants.
Greater than 95% cross contamination was very hard for the courts to swallow. The fact of the matter was that all evidence pointed to the fact that Percy deliberately planted Round-up ready seeds, not cross contaminated ones. I still wanted to argue how it was wrong, but the evidence really just shows that Percy was deliberately and knowingly using round-up ready seeds. If your familiar with another case that really did involve cross contamination I'd be glad to hear it, but saying Percy was a victim of it is just spreading misinformation.
Farmers who get pulled in are infected and are PART of the EVIL. Then I hope you maintain that consistency in your own life and don't travel in anything that indirectly provides money to big oil execs.
By this I am talking about those farming less than 2,000 acres. The number one rule for small farmers is not to get in bed with these fucks
I heard a lot about the things Monsanto was doing, and growing up on a small farm(well under 2k acres) I was pretty upset. The next time I was back home to talk with my dad I asked him what he thought of the nasty things they did. He usually doesn't hesitate to criticize big entities that are hurting farmers like himself, so I expected an ear full. Much to my surprise the earful I got was about all the people protesting against companies like Monsanto on the grounds of them hurting small farmers. He reminded me that if farmers couldn't make more money with Monsanto's seeds they wouldn't use them. My mind immediately started forming all the usual rebuttals like massive input costs and price control and stopped when I remembered that guys farming small farms are just as smart as me. It reminded me the reason I brought the whole thing up with my dad was to get a more informed opinion. Intelligent farmers, with excellent business skills and a more complete understanding of the economics of farming make decisions that are good for their bottom line. For better or worse, Monsanto's round-up ready varieties are a very profitable product for farmers, large and small alike. There are other reasons to criticize Monsanto, but crushing small farms isn't one of them.
Manned space travel would encourage the next 'big leap'. The one advantage of robotic missions over manned ones that really makes the difference right now is simply mass. The next 'big leap' IMHO is getting off of chemical propulsion, and the weight and mission time requirements for a manned Mars mission rather requires bigger thinking than just using more chemicals. It should hopefully see serious consideration for ion drives powered by something bigger than a battery, something like a nuclear sub reactor. Putting that kind of propulsion system in orbit could allow manned exploration of not only Mars but much more of the solar system as well.
If you mean that religious people are capable of reason then I think that you are basically wrong. By the very nature of their chosen (in most cases chosen by others such as parents) belief system they are incapable of reason.
Your argument only holds under 2 conditions: 1.Religious belief always defies reason. 2.Anyone who holds any belief based on anything but pure reason is not reasonable.
You can hold to one if you wish too, but that doesn't make it correct. You will want to be very careful about number 2 though because there may only be a half-dozen people on the planet capable of your definition of "reason".
There really is only one big thing lacking in the way science is communicated, honesty. How many 'science' articles have you read in mainstream media lately that actually presented the true scientific study, rather than extrapolation or analysis? Even here on Slashdot, a presumably more science savy site, the summary and headlines read like the recent 'room temperature superconductor' article. The actual science hadn't discovered anything of the sort, a better summary would've been another step closer to room temperature, but still a long ways to go.
Even laymen aren't as stupid as many in the science crowd might believe. After being told that fusion power, flying cars and fabulous discovery X are just 10 years away for multiple decades, some cynicism sets in. If articles could just present the honest progress and verified science that really has been done, everyone would be the better for it. People shouldn't be expected to have to go in and read the scientific journal for every new science article they read just understand what really has and has not been discovered.
You think it would be OK for your local pastor to go home and give up offerings to Zeus? Then why should it be OK for an astronomer to go home and read horoscopes.... Belief in myths and superstitions shows a lack of rational thought and critical thinking.
First off, I firmly believe that treating the scientific method as a "way of life" rather than a useful tool for understanding it runs directly against the whole idea. Secondly, one person's myths and superstitions can be another's documented fact. Before we knew about germs, the idea of washing to stay healthy could've been called a superstition. The concept of clean/unclean began in religion long before germs where understood scientifically. I'm not sure why we are so anxious to state that scientific understanding has come so far now that there is nothing left in any religion that has a basis in reality. Just because an answer isn't 'scientific', doesn't mean it can't be the best answer we currently have. Many people come to untestable or unfalsifiable beliefs as the best explanation available for the sum of the experiences in their life. For many it is not for a lack of trying to find answers that are testable and falsifiable. Neither does it mean they stop looking, it's just the best they have at the moment.
If you're not willing to do this, not willing to live your own life to the same standard as your professional logic, you're not a scientist.
This sounds like making science a religion, it shouldn't be. There is a difference between using the scientific method to build our understanding of the universe and taking the philosophical stance that the scientific method can fully and completely explain life, the universe and everything. There is no contradiction in believing the scientific method the best approach we have to understanding and still accepting that the possibility that it's useful limits rule out real(albeit unlikely) possible explanations.
That he denies the holocaust and wants Israel removed from the map... sticks and stones. He ain't the first, he won't be the last. My opinion on that? Better him than someone who not only says but does.
I'm repeating myself since you seemed to have missed or ignored it: Providing weapons, training and funding to Hezbollah so they can attack the 'Zionist regime' seems to be following through on his words.
It would even make sense with an enemy next to him that has the most powerful military in the world. Is he a threat to the US? Not until he also has rockets to deliver those nukes, FedEx won't do him that favor.
Well, Iran will be testing new long range missiles shortly with the goal of putting up their own satellites. That means reaching the US. But they don't have that now, they can only reach Israel at the moment. I'm sure it isn't any cause for concern that Iran currently supports and provides weapons to attack Israel, can currently reach Israel with missiles, and is most likely developing nuclear weapons?
You have to understand how the Iran is run, a sizable amount of power lies in the hands of the religious leaders there, you cannot rule the country against them, they still have more power than the president.
Those same religious leaders that he is 'appeasing' with comments about wiping Israel off the map? That makes the idea of nuclear weapons in Iran even LESS appealing!
It doesn't get you reliable information and it's kind of hard to hold moral high ground with some guy blindfolded and strapped to a table in the next room.
And since McCain has been that guy blindfolded and strapped to a table in the next room for five years in Vietnam, I'd guess he has a stronger opinion on the matter than most have seen. How can you have a list of pros/cons and not mention that he's the only candidate(from either side) that's been tortured as a POW? If anyone understands what is being fought for and against it's gonna be him!
MCCAIN: General Miller -- first of all, we know that the detainees at Guantanamo Bay are not subject to the Geneva Conventions because they're Al Qaida, at least those that are Al Qaida and, therefore, being terrorists, they are not subject to the Geneva Conventions for the treatment of prisoners of war. And I don't disagree with that assessment and I don't think you do either, do you?
TAGUBA: Yes, sir. No.
MCCAIN: And yet, General Miller was quoted in your report when he arrived in Iraq -- I believe Secretary Cambone was one of those who urged his transfer there -- that he wanted to Gitmoize the treatment of prisoners in -- throughout Iraq, including Abu Ghraib prison. What do you make of that statement?
TAGUBA: I'd defer that to General Miller, sir.
But for the record, I've never been to Guantanamo. I'm only knowledgeable of my experience and my observations at Abu Ghraib, which is a detention operation along with the other detention operations under the command and control of the 800 M.P. Brigade as under combat conditions, separate and distinct of what I consider to be a sterile environment and...
MCCAIN: But you found clearly in your report violations of the rules for the Geneva Conventions for treatment of prisoners of war, right?
TAGUBA: Yes, sir.
There, finished that quote for you. McCain was actually grilling someone to get the truth about torture being used in Iraq. He was, in fact, fighting against torture being used. I think you need to be aware of more of McCain's history before suggesting he supports the use of torture on anyone, ever. He spent five years studying torture methods in Hanoi during Vietnam. As a result, his position on the matter is crystal clear and he absolutely does have the moral high ground on the issue. Ever notice the difficulty he has raising his arms? That's not from old age.
For everyone comparing McCain to Bush please look at the difference in their military backgrounds. McCain has seen the absolute worst parts of war first hand. I'd trust his opinion on military matters over any other candidate without question.
Ahmadinedschad? Remember that the former want to sell and the latter is a politician. It's popular in the Iran to bash the US, so he's bashing. And, lo and behold, he gets elected.... Can you point me to any Iranian actions that support a "threat" scenario?
I suppose Ahmendijad's denial of the holocaust and insistence that the Zionist regime be removed from the map is just harmless playing to the masses as well? I think there is some justifiable concern when a nation elects someone like that! As for actions, open your eyes! Providing weapons, training and funding to Hezbollah so they can attack the 'Zionist regime' seems to be following through on his words. Pursuing a nuclear weapons program shouldn't be any cause for concern either I suppose? Or, contrary to your own premise, can we trust him at his word on the nuclear power story? Even though Iran has some of the cheapest and largest fossil fuel reserves on the planet, they're gonna spend the extra money to run nuclear for what reason precisely?
Isn't moving to foreign affairs a move up? Isn't it even worse to have a corporate shill influencing foreign policy? Forgive my lack of enthusiasm, I forgot that now your internets are safe:(.
"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)
"If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple." (Luke 14:26)
Glad you kept these together. The passage in Luke of course means 'hate his own father and mother' compared to his love for christ/god, not hate in an absolute sense. Your first passage reinforces that point. Yes, that's hard for most people to swallow and you can call it 'way out there'. I'd argue it's easier to swallow than Xenu though.
"I have come to cast fire upon the earth; and how I wish it were already kindled!" (Luke 12:49)
The context for this and the sword quote being to sort those who believe from those who don't. And that, yes, God will punish those who don't. "Vengence is mine sayeth the Lord", the point is that this judgment is to be left to God, not Christians. Christ taught to love your neighbour, Hubbard taught to destroy your critics in anyway possible.
If Christianity is *all* about the teachings of Jesus, why bother having the Old Testament in a book used by pretty much ever Christian church on the planet? Christianity bases its teaching on the entire Bible, as replete with contradictions as those teachings may end up being.
Leviticus 20 - http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=3&chapter=20&version=31 - lot of death penalties in there for things we would not kill someone for today. It's Old Testament, so we don't have to follow it, right? New order after Jesus' death, yadda yadda, right? Then why preach the "Ten Commandments" as a cornerstone of Christianity? They are OT as well. What parts of the OT do we follow, and why?
I never said to ignore the OT, you did. I said christianity is about following Christ's teachings and stand by that. If you've got a better definition by all means offer one. Jesus spent most of his time teaching on the OT and about how the then current religous leaders had things all wrong. The gist was they were following the letter of the law and not the spirit of it. From christ's teachings, the OT wasn't to be thrown away, but held to a higher standard. Instead of thou shalt not kill, love your neighbour.
I think debating all of christian theology is Offtopic a tad though. It should be sufficient to point out that Christ's teachings revoloved around treating other people fairly and kindly. Hubbard taught pretty much the exact opposite.
It's like believing that Star Wars is real (the movie, not the missile defense system...) Well of course you don't mean the missile defense system. That'd just be crazy.
Slashdot Mirror
Same would be true of a 'regime that uses WMDs'... yet that made your list.
It's only a reason against war if the regime won't use them otherwise. Saddam had plainly demonstrated against the Kurds he was the type to use them anyways.
I wouldn't say it was 'alright'. But its not a reason to go to WAR.
I would say it is a reason, it just shouldn't be the only reason as you seem to imply. I said it was only one of 4 reasons so your skirting very close to making a strawman of it.
But my point is that the US didn't get into Rwanda and other similiar situations.
My point is that they SHOULD HAVE!
Going into Iraq may have headed off a coup, but we don't even know that there was going to be one...
There's only 2 options, there was or was not going to be one. If there wasn't, then leaving Saddam in power meant letting him continue everything he was doing, which is unacceptable. If there was going to be one, the results would be unacceptable. History has repeatedly shown what happens when a repressive dictator is overthrown. When the dictator was of a minority, the coup kills off that minority. Substitute Hutu and Tutsi for Sunni-Shia and you've got what to expect. Substitute Serb and Bosnian for Sunni-Shia and you've got what to expect.
My point was that your shopping list is biased... If I wanted to make a shopping list of 'issues' with North Korea in mind,
"commands one of the worlds largest standing army in the world"
Then please criticize the list, not the fact that I answered your issue with a list. I'll return the favor by pointing out the obvious fact that "having the largest standing army in the world" belongs on the reasons NOT to invade North Korea.
Saddam wasn't involved with 'The Terrorists with a capital T'. Sure he was awful himself, but had nothing to do with 9/11. You then tried to point out some link between Iraq and some minister in the government.
I pointed out Abu Nidal, not "some minister", he was the most wanted terrorist in the world at that point in time. I'm not sure what kind of terrorism you require before you capitalize it if one of the most wanted man in the world doesn't count. Of course, if you are content that Saddam's terrorists weren't from Al-Qaeda then I guess it was alright. I disagree though.
Oh, so we're spending 10 billion a month because a Shia coup would have been 'worse'? Give me a break. If they'd undergone a coup, we'd have applauded the new regime. Eventually if the bloodshed got REALLY bad we'd start criticizing them... like Rwanda... but do little of real consequence.
So if a Shia coup really went bad, like Rwanda, you'd expect that little of real consequence would be done by the outside world. I agree completely with that analysis. I disagree with the part where somehow that situation is better than the current one.
Seems a bit of a cheat if you get to define the shopping list to fit the country you are interested in.
I was, of course responding to your query about why Iraq and not some other regime. There isn't much of a debate if you consider answering your questions 'cheating', now is there?
if they were really concerned about standing up to bullies on other people's behalf they'd have done something in
And in Iraq's case, we waited an awful long time before invading. We waited so long that taking him out caused more damage than he was likely to cause had he been left alone.
I agree that America waited too long, they should have gone to Baghdad and removed Saddam after Kuwait. If you think leaving Saddam alone was still a better plan, you need to review my 'cheat' list up thread.
The genocide was decades ago. We repulsed the kuwait invasion and that issue had been closed for years. By the time we invaded there were no WMDs...
Yes, dictators will be dictators, at least they don't grow up into teenagers.
Seriously though, your saying what exactly? He committed genocide, used WMD on his neighbors and his own people, annexed sovereign nations and gave official government offices to terrorists, but that was the old Saddam. Just what changes exactly had been made to curtail him from continuing such abuses other than diminishing his military strength?
Your exposing your bias here. Your statement is analogous to saying that shop lifters are just like serial killers because they've both broken laws. Bush has been bad, but don't be so ignorant as to even pretend like Saddam is an entirely different category of BAD.
Plunging the nation into civil war, and destroying the infrastructure has hardly done the Iraqi citizens any favors. I'm sure they don't miss Saddam much, but it wasn't worth the price we've paid and the price they've paid to get rid of him when they did.
Well, history makes that pretty impossible to know. But do the mental exercise of what a successful internal coup of Saddam might look like instead. If you think the sectarian violence we have now is bad, the only way an internal Shia coup would've been less violent is if all the Sunni's were already dead or in refugee camps outside Iraq.
I was opposed to the war in Iraq from the beginning, because I knew we were going to screw it up.
Me too, and the Bush administration screwed things up pretty good. Listening to Hitchens though I have a very hard time denying that Iraq wasn't more screwed up before and that at a minimum the current war lessened the power vacuum that an internal civil war in Iraq would've left.
the underlying motivations were not to "stand up to a bully" as you describe it, but to liquidate a former asset who had subsequently proven inconvenient.
Motivations and descriptions aside, the net result of removing Saddam are positive, which is all I am trying to express. Calling the American's bullies for removing Saddam is disingenuous given that.
American military interventions... have historically done nothing but encourage the self-interest of a global American military empire.
That's a load in my opinion. Where does trillions of dollars of debt and the lose of much global good-will fit into America's self interests? Empires colonize for profits. They don't just waste trillions of dollars and then hand the territory back over to the locals.
American intervention stunts the development of the UN, the correct entity for interventions,
And the UN, being the correct entity for intervention, has what kind of record in stopping atrocities? The American record is poor, but the UN's do nothing approach has, on a whole, been worse.
Given our penchant for making things worse, I think we should generally remain uninvolved...
I agree with this. I would add the exception though for situations that are already or eminently horrific, in which case as bad as military intervention may be it is the lesser evil. I would consider Saddam's rule in Iraq such an instance.
As for standing up to "bullies," by which I suppose you mean a combination of aggressive leaders and tyrants -- someone should do it, but it should be someone local.
I agree that is the ideal circumstance. The problem with Iraq was more than just local though as he was invading his neighbors as well. At that point the problem becomes much less 'local'.
how is a society going to develop a stable democracy when its people don't even have enough organization to kick out their own dictators?
Well, it's a mess of course. I agree with you, and it is exactly why I was against the war from the outset as well. The thing I've learned from listening to Hitchens is that Iraq was going to be an even worse mess eventually anyways. Any internal overthrow would most likely see the borders of Iraq's neighbors expanding in and even worse sectarianism than we are seeing now. For all the faults with the American and British presence in Iraq, they are doing a better job of keeping outside influences at bay than a totally local coup could ever have.
If they were really concerned about standing up to bullies on other people's behalf they'd have done something in Liberia, Angola, Tibet, Rwanda, North Vietnam, and a dozen other places that were in far more oppressive regimes than Saddam's. But they aren't and suggesting they are indicates you are either a liar or an idiot.
Show me another regime that meets all four of the following:
1.Committed genocide(the kurds)
2.Used WMD(the Iranians)
3.Not only invaded, but absorbed another sovereign nation as part of itself.(Kuwait).
4.Supported terrorism(Abu Nidal in an Iraqi government office)
The nations you mentioned met one or two of the above, but all of them. Saddam wasn't just a bad guy, he was a monster without rival.
1.Iraq "knocked the books" out of Iran's hands.
Response-With our earnest support.
Agreed
2.Iraq "knocked the books" out of the Kurd's hands.
Response:with chemical weapons we sold him! With our own endorsement!
Agreed
I think a better beginning would be to stop standing behind the bully with our arms crossed, sneering at the victim.
Doubly agreed. The American's aught to get rid of that bully instead of propping him up. But lo and behold, now that they are:
Remember the mantra is 'go home'. They never bothered me at home.
And now the circle has again come back to my question:
Are you against people standing up to bullies on other people's behalf?
This seems to be were you disagree, if you can clarify anywhere I'm misinterpreting the position please do.
When exactly did Iraq knock the books out of our hands?
Iraq "knocked the books" out of Kuwait's hands. Iraq "knocked the books" out of Iran's hands. Iraq "knocked the books" out of the Kurd's hands. Saddam used chemical weapons for the last two, as well. Are you against people standing up to bullies on other people's behalf?
They never bothered me at home.
Well, how noble of you...
Their opponents however, who are trying to do everything to prevent them from producing A-bombs in the first place, are not to be trusted that much, because they (America, Israel) are the ones that have started wars in the last couple of years (the latter only in "defense", but I think they/their PR may be able to produce one such "defense" case quickly).
Part of the reason to not want Iran getting nukes is that such a condition might be the kind of case were extreme minded Israelis would use theirs. Israel's survival has depended strongly on the notion of being pre-emptive when war is imminent. In '67 they succeeded because they hit first. In '73 they took a licking because the Arabs did. The biggest(and many say only) thing keeping Iran from going to war with Israel is that they would lose. Gaining nukes would go a long way to evening the odds. You can accuse me of taking sides all you like, but it is in everyone's best interests that the odds remain strongly in Israel's favor. Iran's leadership isn't the only group of Arabs who'd readily go to war if they felt they could win. To prevent war, history shows that both sides need to be unlikely to gain anything through war. It's also shown the most certain way to accomplish that is to have the most peaceful side carry the biggest stick.
The Canadian government should just nationalize the last mile cables and have a government agency responsible for maintaining and upgrading the lines.
Hmmm, in essence it would be nationalizing the internet. I hear Italy and Germany did great things by nationalizing newspapers some time back in the 40's. What's the worst that could happen by nationalizing the modern day equivalent?
I've actually listened to Percy Schmeiser speak
Perhaps something your not aware of, again, from the supreme court findings:
However, the appellants in this case actively cultivated canola containing the patented invention as part of their business operations. Mr. Schmeiser complained that the original plants came onto his land without his intervention. However, he did not at all explain why he sprayed Roundup to isolate the Roundup Ready plants he found on his land; why he then harvested the plants and segregated the seeds, saved them, and kept them for seed; why he next planted them; and why, through this husbandry, he ended up with 1030 acres of Roundup Ready Canola which would otherwise have cost him $15,000. In these circumstances, the presumption of use flowing from possession stands unrebutted.
He deliberately sprayed round up on his own crop while it was still growing and then saved what survived for seed. Farmers know round-up kills everything, so either he wanted to kill a few acres of his own crop or he wanted to take the fullest advantage of any blow over from his neighbor's land. I'm not inclined to believe he just wanted to destroy his own crop for kicks.
You have a farmer who has spent the last, say, 50 years, manually culling and selecting seeds from his best crops to engineer that crop to his liking. Then his neighbor moves in and plants Roundup Ready seeds. At first there's no problem, but gradually the neighbor's crops will pollinate our farmer's land. Well, naturally this is to be expected, and our farmer would normally just select around the intruders. The problem is, Monsanto takes it upon themselves to sue our farmer and force him to stop using the same farming technique he's been using his entire life.
It's people like Percy Schmeiser who have suffered for it.
That's what I thought, but my dad was again better informed on the matter than me. When I mentioned Monsanto suing a guy for exactly the reasons you describe he was already aware of the details. My dad farmed in Manitoba so news from a small farm just over in Saskatchewan is always relevant. Here's the details from the Canadian Supreme court case.
Schmeiser never purchased Roundup Ready Canola nor did he obtain a licence to plant it. Yet, in 1998, tests revealed that 95 to 98 percent of his 1,000 acres of canola crop was made up of Roundup Ready plants.
Greater than 95% cross contamination was very hard for the courts to swallow. The fact of the matter was that all evidence pointed to the fact that Percy deliberately planted Round-up ready seeds, not cross contaminated ones. I still wanted to argue how it was wrong, but the evidence really just shows that Percy was deliberately and knowingly using round-up ready seeds. If your familiar with another case that really did involve cross contamination I'd be glad to hear it, but saying Percy was a victim of it is just spreading misinformation.
Farmers who get pulled in are infected and are PART of the EVIL.
Then I hope you maintain that consistency in your own life and don't travel in anything that indirectly provides money to big oil execs.
By this I am talking about those farming less than 2,000 acres. The number one rule for small farmers is not to get in bed with these fucks
I heard a lot about the things Monsanto was doing, and growing up on a small farm(well under 2k acres) I was pretty upset. The next time I was back home to talk with my dad I asked him what he thought of the nasty things they did. He usually doesn't hesitate to criticize big entities that are hurting farmers like himself, so I expected an ear full. Much to my surprise the earful I got was about all the people protesting against companies like Monsanto on the grounds of them hurting small farmers. He reminded me that if farmers couldn't make more money with Monsanto's seeds they wouldn't use them. My mind immediately started forming all the usual rebuttals like massive input costs and price control and stopped when I remembered that guys farming small farms are just as smart as me. It reminded me the reason I brought the whole thing up with my dad was to get a more informed opinion. Intelligent farmers, with excellent business skills and a more complete understanding of the economics of farming make decisions that are good for their bottom line. For better or worse, Monsanto's round-up ready varieties are a very profitable product for farmers, large and small alike. There are other reasons to criticize Monsanto, but crushing small farms isn't one of them.
Manned space travel would encourage the next 'big leap'. The one advantage of robotic missions over manned ones that really makes the difference right now is simply mass. The next 'big leap' IMHO is getting off of chemical propulsion, and the weight and mission time requirements for a manned Mars mission rather requires bigger thinking than just using more chemicals. It should hopefully see serious consideration for ion drives powered by something bigger than a battery, something like a nuclear sub reactor. Putting that kind of propulsion system in orbit could allow manned exploration of not only Mars but much more of the solar system as well.
If you mean that religious people are capable of reason then I think that you are basically wrong. By the very nature of their chosen (in most cases chosen by others such as parents) belief system they are incapable of reason.
Your argument only holds under 2 conditions:
1.Religious belief always defies reason.
2.Anyone who holds any belief based on anything but pure reason is not reasonable.
You can hold to one if you wish too, but that doesn't make it correct. You will want to be very careful about number 2 though because there may only be a half-dozen people on the planet capable of your definition of "reason".
There really is only one big thing lacking in the way science is communicated, honesty. How many 'science' articles have you read in mainstream media lately that actually presented the true scientific study, rather than extrapolation or analysis? Even here on Slashdot, a presumably more science savy site, the summary and headlines read like the recent 'room temperature superconductor' article. The actual science hadn't discovered anything of the sort, a better summary would've been another step closer to room temperature, but still a long ways to go.
Even laymen aren't as stupid as many in the science crowd might believe. After being told that fusion power, flying cars and fabulous discovery X are just 10 years away for multiple decades, some cynicism sets in. If articles could just present the honest progress and verified science that really has been done, everyone would be the better for it. People shouldn't be expected to have to go in and read the scientific journal for every new science article they read just understand what really has and has not been discovered.
You think it would be OK for your local pastor to go home and give up offerings to Zeus? Then why should it be OK for an astronomer to go home and read horoscopes.
Belief in myths and superstitions shows a lack of rational thought and critical thinking.
First off, I firmly believe that treating the scientific method as a "way of life" rather than a useful tool for understanding it runs directly against the whole idea.
Secondly, one person's myths and superstitions can be another's documented fact. Before we knew about germs, the idea of washing to stay healthy could've been called a superstition. The concept of clean/unclean began in religion long before germs where understood scientifically. I'm not sure why we are so anxious to state that scientific understanding has come so far now that there is nothing left in any religion that has a basis in reality. Just because an answer isn't 'scientific', doesn't mean it can't be the best answer we currently have. Many people come to untestable or unfalsifiable beliefs as the best explanation available for the sum of the experiences in their life. For many it is not for a lack of trying to find answers that are testable and falsifiable. Neither does it mean they stop looking, it's just the best they have at the moment.
If you're not willing to do this, not willing to live your own life to the same standard as your professional logic, you're not a scientist.
This sounds like making science a religion, it shouldn't be. There is a difference between using the scientific method to build our understanding of the universe and taking the philosophical stance that the scientific method can fully and completely explain life, the universe and everything. There is no contradiction in believing the scientific method the best approach we have to understanding and still accepting that the possibility that it's useful limits rule out real(albeit unlikely) possible explanations.
That he denies the holocaust and wants Israel removed from the map... sticks and stones. He ain't the first, he won't be the last. My opinion on that? Better him than someone who not only says but does.
I'm repeating myself since you seemed to have missed or ignored it:
Providing weapons, training and funding to Hezbollah so they can attack the 'Zionist regime' seems to be following through on his words.
It would even make sense with an enemy next to him that has the most powerful military in the world. Is he a threat to the US? Not until he also has rockets to deliver those nukes, FedEx won't do him that favor.
Well, Iran will be testing new long range missiles shortly with the goal of putting up their own satellites. That means reaching the US. But they don't have that now, they can only reach Israel at the moment. I'm sure it isn't any cause for concern that Iran currently supports and provides weapons to attack Israel, can currently reach Israel with missiles, and is most likely developing nuclear weapons?
You have to understand how the Iran is run, a sizable amount of power lies in the hands of the religious leaders there, you cannot rule the country against them, they still have more power than the president.
Those same religious leaders that he is 'appeasing' with comments about wiping Israel off the map? That makes the idea of nuclear weapons in Iran even LESS appealing!
It doesn't get you reliable information and it's kind of hard to hold moral high ground with some guy blindfolded and strapped to a table in the next room.
And since McCain has been that guy blindfolded and strapped to a table in the next room for five years in Vietnam, I'd guess he has a stronger opinion on the matter than most have seen.
How can you have a list of pros/cons and not mention that he's the only candidate(from either side) that's been tortured as a POW? If anyone understands what is being fought for and against it's gonna be him!
MCCAIN:
General Miller -- first of all, we know that the detainees at Guantanamo Bay are not subject to the Geneva Conventions because they're Al Qaida, at least those that are Al Qaida and, therefore, being terrorists, they are not subject to the Geneva Conventions for the treatment of prisoners of war. And I don't disagree with that assessment and I don't think you do either, do you?
TAGUBA: Yes, sir. No.
MCCAIN: And yet, General Miller was quoted in your report when he arrived in Iraq -- I believe Secretary Cambone was one of those who urged his transfer there -- that he wanted to Gitmoize the treatment of prisoners in -- throughout Iraq, including Abu Ghraib prison. What do you make of that statement?
TAGUBA: I'd defer that to General Miller, sir.
But for the record, I've never been to Guantanamo. I'm only knowledgeable of my experience and my observations at Abu Ghraib, which is a detention operation along with the other detention operations under the command and control of the 800 M.P. Brigade as under combat conditions, separate and distinct of what I consider to be a sterile environment and...
MCCAIN: But you found clearly in your report violations of the rules for the Geneva Conventions for treatment of prisoners of war, right?
TAGUBA: Yes, sir.
There, finished that quote for you. McCain was actually grilling someone to get the truth about torture being used in Iraq. He was, in fact, fighting against torture being used.
I think you need to be aware of more of McCain's history before suggesting he supports the use of torture on anyone, ever. He spent five years studying torture methods in Hanoi during Vietnam. As a result, his position on the matter is crystal clear and he absolutely does have the moral high ground on the issue. Ever notice the difficulty he has raising his arms? That's not from old age.
For everyone comparing McCain to Bush please look at the difference in their military backgrounds. McCain has seen the absolute worst parts of war first hand. I'd trust his opinion on military matters over any other candidate without question.
Ahmadinedschad? Remember that the former want to sell and the latter is a politician. It's popular in the Iran to bash the US, so he's bashing. And, lo and behold, he gets elected. ...
Can you point me to any Iranian actions that support a "threat" scenario?
I suppose Ahmendijad's denial of the holocaust and insistence that the Zionist regime be removed from the map is just harmless playing to the masses as well? I think there is some justifiable concern when a nation elects someone like that!
As for actions, open your eyes! Providing weapons, training and funding to Hezbollah so they can attack the 'Zionist regime' seems to be following through on his words. Pursuing a nuclear weapons program shouldn't be any cause for concern either I suppose? Or, contrary to your own premise, can we trust him at his word on the nuclear power story? Even though Iran has some of the cheapest and largest fossil fuel reserves on the planet, they're gonna spend the extra money to run nuclear for what reason precisely?
Isn't moving to foreign affairs a move up? :(.
Isn't it even worse to have a corporate shill influencing foreign policy?
Forgive my lack of enthusiasm, I forgot that now your internets are safe
"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)
"If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple." (Luke 14:26)
Glad you kept these together. The passage in Luke of course means 'hate his own father and mother' compared to his love for christ/god, not hate in an absolute sense. Your first passage reinforces that point. Yes, that's hard for most people to swallow and you can call it 'way out there'. I'd argue it's easier to swallow than Xenu though.
"I have come to cast fire upon the earth; and how I wish it were already kindled!" (Luke 12:49)
The context for this and the sword quote being to sort those who believe from those who don't. And that, yes, God will punish those who don't. "Vengence is mine sayeth the Lord", the point is that this judgment is to be left to God, not Christians.
Christ taught to love your neighbour, Hubbard taught to destroy your critics in anyway possible.
If Christianity is *all* about the teachings of Jesus, why bother having the Old Testament in a book used by pretty much ever Christian church on the planet? Christianity bases its teaching on the entire Bible, as replete with contradictions as those teachings may end up being.
Leviticus 20 - http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=3&chapter=20&version=31 - lot of death penalties in there for things we would not kill someone for today. It's Old Testament, so we don't have to follow it, right? New order after Jesus' death, yadda yadda, right? Then why preach the "Ten Commandments" as a cornerstone of Christianity? They are OT as well. What parts of the OT do we follow, and why?
I never said to ignore the OT, you did. I said christianity is about following Christ's teachings and stand by that. If you've got a better definition by all means offer one.
Jesus spent most of his time teaching on the OT and about how the then current religous leaders had things all wrong. The gist was they were following the letter of the law and not the spirit of it. From christ's teachings, the OT wasn't to be thrown away, but held to a higher standard. Instead of thou shalt not kill, love your neighbour.
I think debating all of christian theology is Offtopic a tad though. It should be sufficient to point out that Christ's teachings revoloved around treating other people fairly and kindly. Hubbard taught pretty much the exact opposite.
It's like believing that Star Wars is real (the movie, not the missile defense system...)
Well of course you don't mean the missile defense system. That'd just be crazy.