My morals are NOT based on international norms. I don't know who you perceive to be the international entity. The UN? That's nothing more than a collection of views ranging from totalitarianism (China), to sexism (Kuwait), to imperialism (USA), to military dictatorship (Pakistan), to... you get the point.
I definitely do not subscribe any international entity. However, my point is that countries should follow international norms. I don't think you derive morality from it. However, you DO derive standards and order from it. For instance, the notion of country borders and things like control of oceans are iffy. However, for the sake of simplicity, people follow international norms. Similarly, things like human rights are best followed based on international norms. This doesn't mean you HAVE to follow it but it is the simplest path to take. If you have some alternative to dumping international norms, let me hear it. We already know what Bush has proposed. How about you?
Who the fuck is Pilate? I mean that... never heard of him... BTW, it's better if you quote some guy and present YOUR views. Quoting others will simply make you a slave to their ideals. If you are content with that, that's your choice... I could probably quote 10 famous people who said that slavery is great. Does that mean anything?
Moving onto something serious... and an education lession for the right wingers:
The Second International DOES exist. In fact, it is the largest political body in the world (nothing else even comes close, although capitalist bodies based in USA as well as other capitalist bodies like the IMF and WTO are far more powerful).
The only one that was discredited and died off is the 3rd International (this is what USSR controlled). The First International didn't get off anywhere. And the Fourth International still exists.
In case you have no idea what these are, here is a quick summary:
First International (broke into two)->Marxism & Anarchism Second International->Socialism
Third International (controlled by USSR) ->Communism Fourth International->Trotskyism
I'm sure you already knew all this since you belonged to the 33rd Congregational Baptist Liberterrainainian;)
USSR never got to socialism but their first few steps WERE towards communism. So it is accurate to call them Communist (with a capital C). Nazi Germany, on the other hand, had nothing to do with it. If you understood these systems, you would see that this is obvious.
So, the way I look at it, the only countries that can be called Communist are: Cuba, USSR, China, and Vietnam. Countries such as North Korea, Iraq, Syria, El Salvador, Guatemala, Chile, Laos, Cambodia, and Libya cannot be called Communist.
USA DID try overthrowing the Venezuelan government! Who do you think was behind it? Where is the leader of the then-temporary government? You might want to look in Miami...
If you disagree, you disagree, but it IS a bonus (icing on the cake) that the man we removed from power was guilty of human rights violations.
I have big problems with your "icing on the cake" reasoning. I'll just leave it at that. I think you severely weaken your argument with those.
So you think this was an illegal war. That's fine. I disagree with you, and ask by whose laws was it illegal... but even if you disagree with everything else, answer this:
My problem is not so much with it's illegality. I can't really say it is an illegal war. Instead, it is an IMMORAL war, and is against international norms. I agree with you that there is no such thing as a law when it comes to international issues. The UN is trying to establish a world court (which USA doesn't support) but other than that, there is very little law here. Canada could invade Greenland tomorrow and it would NOT be illegal. If anything, the UN will pass a resolution condemning it but that's about it. There are no laws. That's why imperialists rule. That's why USSR invaded all the time and no one said anything--all these were LEGAL invasions:(. That's why USA invades all the time! None of my argument is rooted in law. If anything, I hate modern legal systems which is controlled by elites and has little to do with justice. My view is simply based on morality and suffering.
True or false: Deposing a sadistic dictator guilty of gross human rights violations is a good thing.
You know... if the world was as simple as you imagine, things would be a lot easier. The answer to your question is TRUE. But the world isn't so simple. The real question should be:
'Is it worth deposing a human rights abusing dictator if it meant that you will kill almost 10,000 civilians, destabilize and impoverish* the country for decades, probably cause other countries to invade others with the same reasoning, end up with a civil war or a theocracy, and lose 500 of your own troops?'
(* I'm assuming that USA is not going to hand out $87billion every year to Iraq. And that Iraqi oil is still being hampered by sabateurs. )
You answer is YES; mine is NO. I will never have the blood of the innocent on me. It may be ok with you. But I value life too much to get involved in these "humanitarian interventions" which have very little to do with humanitarianism!
I'm somewhat surprised that we got Sadaam before we got Osama. Sadaam had more loyal supporters...
That's just completely wrong. Saddam Hussein has VERY LITTLE support from anyone. He can't even leave the country because no one else supports him. Usama bin Laden, on the other hand, has greater support. UBL can leave and go to practically any country. Don't forget that Saddam Hussein was a dictator. Dictators generally have very little support from anyone. For instance, the North Korean leader, who is nothing more than a dictator, will have little support if he is on the run. In contrast, the Chinese leaders, who are totalitarians but not exactly dictators in the general use of the word, can flee to tons of countries. (Disclaimer: I am not claiming China or North Korea should be invaded. I'm just using them as examples).
I heard that his wife gave him up hoping to get the $25 million.
Saddam Hussein's wife probably has hudreads of millions, if not billions. $25M is nothing to her. Also, the US govt generally doesn't pay its rewards (except isn some special cases). This is what intelligence experts say. Saddam Hussein and Usama bin Laden might be exceptions since they are at the top of the list but countries don't generally pay bounties. This is one reason why no one gives evidence. In contrast, police forces ALWAYS pay bounties.
I completely disagree with you on this issue (As a side note, I completely agree with your arguments against the war).
You CANNOT exclude people in a democracy. What you are talking about is creating fascism. There should be no limitation on democracy! No if's or but's.
The reason USA is not a theocracy has nothing to do with the laws. The reason is pretty simple. Most Americans don't want a theocracy. That's it! If Americans wanted a theocracy they can switch the government to one. During the battle with USSR, don't forget that USA actually inserted a lot of religious concepts (like God in the pledge of allegiance). If 80% of Americans wanted a theocracy, USA will become a theocracy overnight! There are only around 10million evangelical Christians (the closest to fundamentalists in USA) and this is a small minority and hence can't implement a religious system. BUT if 100million Americans were like these Evangelical Christians, you can bet that USA will start passing pro-religious laws.
If the Iraqis want a religious system, they will get it. What USA, or you, try to do doesn't matter. That's how the world works. Countries like India, Isreal, etc are ruled by religious fundamentalists. It doesn't matter what the laws are. If a big chunk of the population desires something, it will happen--you just change the laws.
What you are proposing, by limiting religious groups, is actually fascist in nature. I'm surprised a liberatarian-type (that's what your profile says:) ), supports such a blatant abuse of democracy. The last time anyone did what you are propsing the results weren't pretty. Look at what the "West" did in Algeria, in order to block a religious party from gaining power? Does anyone even count the dead there anymore?:( And how about how China was suppressed the buddists in Tibet? The number of dead in Tibet is small but the results are hardly pretty.
If you think the first "war" never ended, which is a bizarre way of looking at things, I guess I don't have much to say. I'm not even sure why the US Congress or President even took a vote.
Iraq not only never provided such evidence (as they agreed to do to stop the fighting), they made it difficult for the inspectors to seek the weapons (which they should never have had to do anyway - it wasn't their job).
These reasons are not sufficient to start a war. If you think they are good enough to start a war, that's your view I guess.
That Hussein was particularly bad about human rights violations, and the FACT that Iraq had links to terrorists (even if not specifically Al Qaeda, which it seems they may actually have had all along anyway), is simply icing on the cake.
That is a dumb way to reason war. I'm not even sure you believe what you wrong. You are on thin ice here. So, if Saddam Hussein was very humanitarian by donating a few billions to the poor, and was healping "human rights", it is less of a reason? Do you actually believe the converse of what you stated? If Hitler never invaded other countries, do you think no one should have invaded Germany, because we all know that Hitler helped the German people tremendously (created jobs, raised standard of living, improved human rights--as long as you were an Aryan, etc)?
Don't revert to ludicrous reasoning. If you think the war was because the first one never ended, just stay with that. Or if you think UN resolution non-compliance is the real reason, stick with that. Don't bring up all these other "icings on the cake" because you will just lose.
You cannot justify anything you said. You are SPECULATING on everything. For instance, how do you know the Iraqis wanted an invasion? Did someone hold a poll before the invasion? Or is this just some propaganda from the US government?
Just to see how idiotic your view is... I can probably find 10,000 Americans who are in favour of overthrowing the government. All anarchists are against the government, fascists don't like the US govt, some "Southerners" don't like the federal government, some liberatarian types would support collapse of the goverment as well. Now, are you saying that this gives ME the right to invade your country because these people don't have the means of overthrowing the government?
Invading other countries under some bogus reason like "war on terrorism", "drugs", "freedom", "democracy", etc are not only immoral but it accomplishes nothing. I believe it was you who quoted Benjamin Franklin. I find it ironic that you quote a Founding Father without any understanding of what any of them said. Do you support Washington and Jefferson's views of non-intervention?
BTW, you will proven wrong (I hope you admit you are wrong at that time) when Iraq is ruled by an autocrat similar to the Shah in Iran (during the 70's). The Iraqis will get their freedom all right. While I'm at it, I'm also not sure what you are doing to do with the looming civil war over "Kurdistan". I guess the tens of thousands that may die in the civil war will make this war look "righteous":(
The UN did NOT sanction the war. Whether Iraq complied or not is irrelevant. It is not sufficient to start a war. There are hundreads of countries breaking resolutions, including some serious human rights ones. But it doesn't give you, or me, any right to invade these countries.
You, and Bush, interpret non-compliance as giving sufficient power to invade. This is not true. What USA is doing is literally "extra-judicial". It is taking stuff into its own hands.
You better leave the UN out of this. Trying to hide behind it won't help since there was no authorization for war.
I'd like to point out to all the people bitching about our previous aid to people like Hussein that your arguments will be valid when you can prove that two wrongs make a right.
lol Trying to prove 'two wrongs=one right' is kind of hard isn't it? In any case, I'll try. I'll propose a simple thing. Something you are probably confident in.
I assume that you view the invasion of Iraq as a good thing. I also assume that you view the invasion of Syria and Iran (next on the list as put forth by senior US officials) as good things.
If you think the war--and more importantly the pre-emptive war for peace philsophy--was the right thing, you will see the benefits of it. Right? So, if you are right, Iraq will be a nice and dandy democratic country in 2 years. But, I claim that Iraq--and the whole world--will be worse off. I also claim that Iraq will not be a democracy-like country in 2 years. The country will be run by an autocratic regime! I also claim that there will be a civil war in Iraq within 16 months (just about the time US troops "withdraw").
I'm pretty sure you disagree with everything I said. So, the answer to your "proof" is, 'wait and see'. You don't need to wait long. Just wait 2 years and we'll see who is right. You'll get your proof all right. Iraq would be in the midst of a civil war. Other countries (such as Russia) will use the Bush doctrine to invade countries. And you will be proven wrong.
You are basically living in Plato's cave, detached from political reality. Don't feel bad. The vast majority of others are the same. The way politics is, you CANNOT correct mistakes. Politicians always try but they never can. The best one can do is to admit mistake and move on--but politicians never do. Unfortunately, the price is not paid by these warmongers and war profiteers; it is paid by the lives of the innocent and the naive. Iraq is being sold piece-by-piece (except for the oil industry) to the highest bidder (who is likely not an Iraqi). The Iraqis will never gain any benefit from this--they will always be the puppet of the empire and foreign corporations. Between 7,000 and 10,000 Iraqis have died in this bogus "war". More than 500 coalition soldiers have died (mostly American) with more than 2500 casulties. These are the prices for being wrong. Thousands of Iraqis will grow up in poverty orphaned without any parents. Thousands of American soldiers will live without any legs or arms. These will suffer long after Bush has retired to his palace, and you are proven "wrong".
If the economic system practiced allows capitalistic entities, it is not socialism. You CANNOT have private entities, especially wealthy people, under socialism. Economics is one half of socialism and if it differs from the ideology you cannot claim it is socialism. This is just like how you cannot really call say Canada socialist. Canada simply has socialist ideals but its core economic system is capitalism. If capitalism collapses (for example), Canada will collapse. Hence it isn't socialist. In contrast, if Canada were socialist, the collapse of capitalism will have no impact.
What the Nazis practiced can best be thought of as facism (politics) on top of capitalism (economics).
Having said all that, SOME people use a vague defintion of socialism which has nothing to do with the left-wing ideology followed by socialists (just like how some people use a vague definition of democracy which has nothing to do with true democracy). On top of that, the actions of the 2nd International (which is the "official" socialist body) is confusing at times (especially with respect to "free" trade).
Nazi Germany had little to do with socialism, other than the rhetoric. Germany was NOT run by the state. It was run by private businesses. Look it up. Germany was very capitalistic. Most of the industries were run by wealthy industrialists, and private entrepreneurs. In fact, the Jews, Gypsies, communists, homosexuals, etc were all forced to work as slaves for PRIVATE companies. Without capitalism, Germany would never had gone where it did (it's hard to ramp up socialism/communism/etc to a decent level in a short amount of time (eg. USSR, China, etc); capitalism, on the other hand, can be ramped up quickly)
You are also wrong with Nietche. Don't bring him into this. He had nothing to do with Nazism. Yes, his philosophy IS centered on fascism (the concept of super-class and so forth) but Nazis did not really use his philosophies. The only thing in common between Nietche and the Nazis is that the Nazis distributed his works to boost soldier morale but that's about it. That is to say, his philosophy was used for propaganda purposes but it did not impact the ideology. The ideology came out of a bunch of other stuff.
First of all, the ASSUMPTION by everyone (I hope) is that it is battle between China and Taiwan WITHOUT USA. If USA was involved, it is a joke. USA has the largest military the world has ever seen; it spends more on it than the next 20 countries COMBINED: and it is far more advanced than anything else (stealth? satellites? etc). So if USA intervenes, it will defeat China (although casulties will be high).
I think the speculation is under the scenario where USA does NOT intervene.
second, china built the three gorges dam. they have so much capital (even in communist china!!) tied up in it, it generates such a large portionof power. and, it is impssible to defend from air ro missile attack. we could take it out in about 10 minutes. and they're fscking toast.
That's a war crime. That doesn't necessarily stop the hawks like you but the rest of the world won't be happy, just like how no one is going to stop you from using nuclear weapons but the rest of the world won't be happy. Some people actually calling for use of nuclear weapons during Vietnam but USA (thankfully) didn't use them.
i could go on further. the cuyrrent regime is on its last legs. this is an in ternal power struggle between the old commies and the younger reformers. nothing else.
I disagree... There is no struggle. Struggle between who? Who are the OLD Communists? If anything, it was the old ones that initiated the reforms. There is no struggle here. China is pretty solid. This is not a USSR.
--OFF TOPIC--
You justify the invasion of Iraq by citing the massacre of Kurds by Saddam. That's ok. But what do you say about the Kurds that were killed by Turkey with US weapons? They don't count? (You can get some information on the oppression faced by the Kurds here and here). Or what will you say when USA stabs the Kurds in the back? It seems to be headed that way. The handpicked Iraqi "government" is not exactly on good terms with the Kurds. Iraq is very close to a civil war. What will you say when the Kurds diagree with USA in..oh...1 year when the bogus US-picked government is sworn in?
At least he capitalizes the word 'liberal'. I imagine he is talking about some Liberal Party instead of liberals in general. That's cool with me. Many Liberals are not liberals.
I don't think Mao's mass murder and Stalin's mass murder are the same. Mao's was directly related to his economic policies. He also had some bizarre idea with his cultural revolution (which has nothing to do with communism).
Stalin, on the other hand, killed people for political reasons. They were killed because they were his opponents. Nearly everyone Stalin killed were dissents.
In the end, a death is a death. However, one was political while other was economic.
The US would have to step to the line in the hopes that China would bow out. But once the US steps to the line, they can't bow out. If we did, what would our defense pacts with the Japanese, Koreas, Europeans, Israel etc mean?
As much as I dislike the guy, Charles de Gaulle said it best: "Countries have no friends; they only have interests!" I find that to be almost a truism. I personally think USA WILL stop defending Taiwan in 30 or so years. Once China ramps up its nukes to US levels, and once China becomes an economic superpower (some say it already is but I dont' think so), USA will have little interest in defending Taiwan. There is NO WAY USA will sacrifice itself by using nukes to defend Taiwan--that's just rhetoric.
Japan is looking to seperate from USA. They are trying to dismantle their pacifist constitution and develop an offensive military. There is even speculation that Japan may pursue nuclear weapons within a few decades. In any case, USA was never really protecting Japan. Japan was not an interest to USSR and China never posed a threat to Japan over the last 30 years. Even now, Japan will likely defeat China in a war (alone) whereas Taiwan won't. What USA did to Japan was to contain it. It prevented Japan from developing an offensive--and hence formidable--military force by claiming that it would protect it.
As far as Europe is concerned, the fall of USSR pretty much means that Europe doesn't care anymore. If anything, they are trying to build up their independent military force, which USA is unhappy about.
As far as Isreal is concerned, I'm not sure how long USA will protect it. Just like all other countries, the relationship is driven by interest. If USA feels that Isreal is not worth it, it will abandon it.
What I am saying (that USA dumping it allies and vice versa) might be shocking to the centrists and moderates but that is what has happened throughout the ages. For example, if someone said USA was attempting to cut ties with Saudi Arabia 20 years ago, you would be laughed at. Yet that is precisely what is happening. The interests (oil, control of middle east, etc) are still there but the downside (getting involved with middle east wars, terrorists targetting USA, etc) is starting to make the relationship unattractive.
Similarly, consider the US relationship with France and Britain. USA and France were VERY close during its independence days (and for about 100 years after that). Britain, in contrast, was an enemy of USA for its first 100 years or so. Now, France has less in common with USA than Britain. If anything, USA and Britain are close (although not as close as USA and France were in the 1700's).
That's why my philsophy is to always build up your country by yourself. If other countries help, fine. But just know that they are doing it for their own interests. The day will come when they will pack up and leave (when it doesn't serve their interests anymore).
I should note that... as much as I hate capitalism, capitalism is actually very peaceful. War is actually bad for business! True capitalists generally stand against wars. CATO institution, the bastion of capitalism, generally criticizes US imperialist wars.
I, being a leftist, always wonder if the CIA factbook can be trusted (given that spy agencies are immoral, liers, and carry out all sort of heinious crimes). I know everyone uses it, but would anyone notice something if the CIA actually initiates propaganda through the Factbook (as opposed to tradional channels like television, news, etc)?
To see of the potential, consider this example. USA is having all sorts of problems in Iraq (check out antiwar.com to get stories that are ignored). USA is also claiming a desire to implement democracy (which it doesn't but I don't wnat to get into that). Let's say they hold an election in Iraq. Let's say there are voting "irregularities" (that's codeword for vote rigging). To manipulate Americans, and possibly others who rely on the CIA Factbook, the CIA can simply cook up some ethnic figures for Iraq. Instead of Shiite being 60%, they could change the figure to say 49% (they have to do this subtlely of course, but spy agents are good at this stuff (that's their whole job in life)). The US govt can reconcile a questionable election where say the Shiite only got 40% of the vote by claiming that they are only 49% of the population instead of 60%. So why trust the CIA Factbook? Would you notice something like that?
Of course, the example I cited is blatantly obvious and too easy to check. However, agents use more subtle techniques and the majority of the population won't pick it up, just like how the majority can't tell disinformation from expert propagandists (like USA, Britain, China, Russia).
Also, it doesn't hurt if you keep most of your population at damn near the global poverty level.
Actually you have a greater chance of a revolt if people are poor than if they are rich. People in poorer countries are more likely to overthrow their governemnts than in rich countries, regardless of how free the country is.
If you are a totalitarian, you certainly do not want to keep people in poverty.
I am not that knowledgeable about US law (or for that matter, laws of any country) but I think USA protects people regardless of whether they are citizens or not. The reason the US govt is able to get away with Guantanamo Bay is not because they are non-citizens, but because it is not on US soil. The Bush administration is using a loophole which basically says that laws only apply to US territory. As a side note, if Patriot Act II gets passed (which will happen, when terrorists strike again), US citizens will lose literally ALL their rights because they can be sent to another country (In case you don't know, Patriot Act II allows the government to consider US citizens as "non-combatants"--right now only non-citizens have been given that status).
In any case, ideals are what matter; not the laws. Too bad conservatives like you don't realize that. USA is not free because of its laws; it's free because of its ideals.
It would be naive to assume that China's threats aren't serious, but it's also ignorant to assume that the U.S. would stand idly by and watch this model democracy be destroyed by Communist thugs. It ain't gonna happen.
USA will protect Taiwan just like they protect Saudi Arabia. That is to say, as long as it is in their interest. But note how the neocons are mounting a campaign to start a war with Saudi Arabia. Same thing will happen with Taiwan. When Taiwan is deemed an "annoyance", it will be cut off. I suspect this will happen in around 30 years, just around the time China ramps up its nukes to US levels (5000+ warheads).
What's more, the Taiwan military are no slouches; they are a modern, well armed fighting force that would be highly motivated to fight if the island were to be attacked. China was able to knock over Tibet pretty easily, but invading Taiwan would be different; it would doubtless cost hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides, and there's no guarantee it would succeed, even if the U.S. finked out. And, of course, there are those rumored nuclear weapons in Taiwan's arsenal.
Taiwan has no nukes... Taiwan will easily lose to China. I don't think the casulties will hit hundreads of thousands (it'll be more like 50,000). I think casulties will be low because it will be easy for China to control Taiwan than say Japan (the cultures/languages/history/etc are similar; it's nothing like the US occupation of Iraq which is pretty much a foreign culture/language/etc). Taiwan may be more advanced but China isn't THAT badly off. I mean, China spends quite a bit on the latest Russian weapons too.
Having said this, China will not invade Taiwan any time soon (take that to mean at least 15 years). I don't even know why this is a story on slashdot. This war speculation is nothing more than propaganda put forth by conservative forces in USA. It is not in China's interest to invade Taiwan right now. Therefore, it won't happen. China's focus right now is its economy.
There is no such thing as economic "common sense". Perhaps what you mean is imperialism. USA's control of Middle East oil is supposed to be "common sense" yet it is USA's biggest threat right now. Do you think the terrorists from the Middle East would be targetting USA if it didn't meddle in their affairs?
Or perhaps you mean capitalism? Or maybe "free trade"? I'm not quite sure what economic "common sense" is. Is the US embargo on Cuba common sense or not? USSR trading with Europe is an impossibility, given that one side was practicing capitalism and the other side was practicing a form of communism... it's like trying to get a liberatarian and a totalitarian to trade. Just isn't going to work...
Slashdot Mirror
My morals are NOT based on international norms. I don't know who you perceive to be the international entity. The UN? That's nothing more than a collection of views ranging from totalitarianism (China), to sexism (Kuwait), to imperialism (USA), to military dictatorship (Pakistan), to... you get the point.
I definitely do not subscribe any international entity. However, my point is that countries should follow international norms. I don't think you derive morality from it. However, you DO derive standards and order from it. For instance, the notion of country borders and things like control of oceans are iffy. However, for the sake of simplicity, people follow international norms. Similarly, things like human rights are best followed based on international norms. This doesn't mean you HAVE to follow it but it is the simplest path to take. If you have some alternative to dumping international norms, let me hear it. We already know what Bush has proposed. How about you?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Who the fuck is Pilate? I mean that... never heard of him... BTW, it's better if you quote some guy and present YOUR views. Quoting others will simply make you a slave to their ideals. If you are content with that, that's your choice... I could probably quote 10 famous people who said that slavery is great. Does that mean anything?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
lol hehe That's funny. I'll give you that :)
;)
Moving onto something serious... and an education lession for the right wingers:
The Second International DOES exist. In fact, it is the largest political body in the world (nothing else even comes close, although capitalist bodies based in USA as well as other capitalist bodies like the IMF and WTO are far more powerful).
The only one that was discredited and died off is the 3rd International (this is what USSR controlled). The First International didn't get off anywhere. And the Fourth International still exists.
In case you have no idea what these are, here is a quick summary:
First International (broke into two)->Marxism & Anarchism
Second International->Socialism
Third International (controlled by USSR) ->Communism
Fourth International->Trotskyism
I'm sure you already knew all this since you belonged to the 33rd Congregational Baptist Liberterrainainian
Sivaram Velauthapillai
USSR never got to socialism but their first few steps WERE towards communism. So it is accurate to call them Communist (with a capital C). Nazi Germany, on the other hand, had nothing to do with it. If you understood these systems, you would see that this is obvious.
So, the way I look at it, the only countries that can be called Communist are: Cuba, USSR, China, and Vietnam. Countries such as North Korea, Iraq, Syria, El Salvador, Guatemala, Chile, Laos, Cambodia, and Libya cannot be called Communist.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
USA DID try overthrowing the Venezuelan government! Who do you think was behind it? Where is the leader of the then-temporary government? You might want to look in Miami...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
If you disagree, you disagree, but it IS a bonus (icing on the cake) that the man we removed from power was guilty of human rights violations.
:(. That's why USA invades all the time! None of my argument is rooted in law. If anything, I hate modern legal systems which is controlled by elites and has little to do with justice. My view is simply based on morality and suffering.
I have big problems with your "icing on the cake" reasoning. I'll just leave it at that. I think you severely weaken your argument with those.
So you think this was an illegal war. That's fine. I disagree with you, and ask by whose laws was it illegal... but even if you disagree with everything else, answer this:
My problem is not so much with it's illegality. I can't really say it is an illegal war. Instead, it is an IMMORAL war, and is against international norms. I agree with you that there is no such thing as a law when it comes to international issues. The UN is trying to establish a world court (which USA doesn't support) but other than that, there is very little law here. Canada could invade Greenland tomorrow and it would NOT be illegal. If anything, the UN will pass a resolution condemning it but that's about it. There are no laws. That's why imperialists rule. That's why USSR invaded all the time and no one said anything--all these were LEGAL invasions
True or false: Deposing a sadistic dictator guilty of gross human rights violations is a good thing.
You know... if the world was as simple as you imagine, things would be a lot easier. The answer to your question is TRUE. But the world isn't so simple. The real question should be:
'Is it worth deposing a human rights abusing dictator if it meant that you will kill almost 10,000 civilians, destabilize and impoverish* the country for decades, probably cause other countries to invade others with the same reasoning, end up with a civil war or a theocracy, and lose 500 of your own troops?'
(* I'm assuming that USA is not going to hand out $87billion every year to Iraq. And that Iraqi oil is still being hampered by sabateurs. )
You answer is YES; mine is NO. I will never have the blood of the innocent on me. It may be ok with you. But I value life too much to get involved in these "humanitarian interventions" which have very little to do with humanitarianism!
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I'm somewhat surprised that we got Sadaam before we got Osama. Sadaam had more loyal supporters...
That's just completely wrong. Saddam Hussein has VERY LITTLE support from anyone. He can't even leave the country because no one else supports him. Usama bin Laden, on the other hand, has greater support. UBL can leave and go to practically any country. Don't forget that Saddam Hussein was a dictator. Dictators generally have very little support from anyone. For instance, the North Korean leader, who is nothing more than a dictator, will have little support if he is on the run. In contrast, the Chinese leaders, who are totalitarians but not exactly dictators in the general use of the word, can flee to tons of countries. (Disclaimer: I am not claiming China or North Korea should be invaded. I'm just using them as examples).
I heard that his wife gave him up hoping to get the $25 million.
Saddam Hussein's wife probably has hudreads of millions, if not billions. $25M is nothing to her. Also, the US govt generally doesn't pay its rewards (except isn some special cases). This is what intelligence experts say. Saddam Hussein and Usama bin Laden might be exceptions since they are at the top of the list but countries don't generally pay bounties. This is one reason why no one gives evidence. In contrast, police forces ALWAYS pay bounties.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I completely disagree with you on this issue (As a side note, I completely agree with your arguments against the war).
:) ), supports such a blatant abuse of democracy. The last time anyone did what you are propsing the results weren't pretty. Look at what the "West" did in Algeria, in order to block a religious party from gaining power? Does anyone even count the dead there anymore? :( And how about how China was suppressed the buddists in Tibet? The number of dead in Tibet is small but the results are hardly pretty.
You CANNOT exclude people in a democracy. What you are talking about is creating fascism. There should be no limitation on democracy! No if's or but's.
The reason USA is not a theocracy has nothing to do with the laws. The reason is pretty simple. Most Americans don't want a theocracy. That's it! If Americans wanted a theocracy they can switch the government to one. During the battle with USSR, don't forget that USA actually inserted a lot of religious concepts (like God in the pledge of allegiance). If 80% of Americans wanted a theocracy, USA will become a theocracy overnight! There are only around 10million evangelical Christians (the closest to fundamentalists in USA) and this is a small minority and hence can't implement a religious system. BUT if 100million Americans were like these Evangelical Christians, you can bet that USA will start passing pro-religious laws.
If the Iraqis want a religious system, they will get it. What USA, or you, try to do doesn't matter. That's how the world works. Countries like India, Isreal, etc are ruled by religious fundamentalists. It doesn't matter what the laws are. If a big chunk of the population desires something, it will happen--you just change the laws.
What you are proposing, by limiting religious groups, is actually fascist in nature. I'm surprised a liberatarian-type (that's what your profile says
Sivaram Velauthapillai
If you think the first "war" never ended, which is a bizarre way of looking at things, I guess I don't have much to say. I'm not even sure why the US Congress or President even took a vote.
Iraq not only never provided such evidence (as they agreed to do to stop the fighting), they made it difficult for the inspectors to seek the weapons (which they should never have had to do anyway - it wasn't their job).
These reasons are not sufficient to start a war. If you think they are good enough to start a war, that's your view I guess.
That Hussein was particularly bad about human rights violations, and the FACT that Iraq had links to terrorists (even if not specifically Al Qaeda, which it seems they may actually have had all along anyway), is simply icing on the cake.
That is a dumb way to reason war. I'm not even sure you believe what you wrong. You are on thin ice here. So, if Saddam Hussein was very humanitarian by donating a few billions to the poor, and was healping "human rights", it is less of a reason? Do you actually believe the converse of what you stated? If Hitler never invaded other countries, do you think no one should have invaded Germany, because we all know that Hitler helped the German people tremendously (created jobs, raised standard of living, improved human rights--as long as you were an Aryan, etc)?
Don't revert to ludicrous reasoning. If you think the war was because the first one never ended, just stay with that. Or if you think UN resolution non-compliance is the real reason, stick with that. Don't bring up all these other "icings on the cake" because you will just lose.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
You cannot justify anything you said. You are SPECULATING on everything. For instance, how do you know the Iraqis wanted an invasion? Did someone hold a poll before the invasion? Or is this just some propaganda from the US government?
:(
Just to see how idiotic your view is... I can probably find 10,000 Americans who are in favour of overthrowing the government. All anarchists are against the government, fascists don't like the US govt, some "Southerners" don't like the federal government, some liberatarian types would support collapse of the goverment as well. Now, are you saying that this gives ME the right to invade your country because these people don't have the means of overthrowing the government?
Invading other countries under some bogus reason like "war on terrorism", "drugs", "freedom", "democracy", etc are not only immoral but it accomplishes nothing. I believe it was you who quoted Benjamin Franklin. I find it ironic that you quote a Founding Father without any understanding of what any of them said. Do you support Washington and Jefferson's views of non-intervention?
BTW, you will proven wrong (I hope you admit you are wrong at that time) when Iraq is ruled by an autocrat similar to the Shah in Iran (during the 70's). The Iraqis will get their freedom all right. While I'm at it, I'm also not sure what you are doing to do with the looming civil war over "Kurdistan". I guess the tens of thousands that may die in the civil war will make this war look "righteous"
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The UN did NOT sanction the war. Whether Iraq complied or not is irrelevant. It is not sufficient to start a war. There are hundreads of countries breaking resolutions, including some serious human rights ones. But it doesn't give you, or me, any right to invade these countries.
You, and Bush, interpret non-compliance as giving sufficient power to invade. This is not true. What USA is doing is literally "extra-judicial". It is taking stuff into its own hands.
You better leave the UN out of this. Trying to hide behind it won't help since there was no authorization for war.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I'd like to point out to all the people bitching about our previous aid to people like Hussein that your arguments will be valid when you can prove that two wrongs make a right.
lol Trying to prove 'two wrongs=one right' is kind of hard isn't it? In any case, I'll try. I'll propose a simple thing. Something you are probably confident in.
I assume that you view the invasion of Iraq as a good thing. I also assume that you view the invasion of Syria and Iran (next on the list as put forth by senior US officials) as good things.
If you think the war--and more importantly the pre-emptive war for peace philsophy--was the right thing, you will see the benefits of it. Right? So, if you are right, Iraq will be a nice and dandy democratic country in 2 years. But, I claim that Iraq--and the whole world--will be worse off. I also claim that Iraq will not be a democracy-like country in 2 years. The country will be run by an autocratic regime! I also claim that there will be a civil war in Iraq within 16 months (just about the time US troops "withdraw").
I'm pretty sure you disagree with everything I said. So, the answer to your "proof" is, 'wait and see'. You don't need to wait long. Just wait 2 years and we'll see who is right. You'll get your proof all right. Iraq would be in the midst of a civil war. Other countries (such as Russia) will use the Bush doctrine to invade countries. And you will be proven wrong.
You are basically living in Plato's cave, detached from political reality. Don't feel bad. The vast majority of others are the same. The way politics is, you CANNOT correct mistakes. Politicians always try but they never can. The best one can do is to admit mistake and move on--but politicians never do. Unfortunately, the price is not paid by these warmongers and war profiteers; it is paid by the lives of the innocent and the naive. Iraq is being sold piece-by-piece (except for the oil industry) to the highest bidder (who is likely not an Iraqi). The Iraqis will never gain any benefit from this--they will always be the puppet of the empire and foreign corporations. Between 7,000 and 10,000 Iraqis have died in this bogus "war". More than 500 coalition soldiers have died (mostly American) with more than 2500 casulties. These are the prices for being wrong. Thousands of Iraqis will grow up in poverty orphaned without any parents. Thousands of American soldiers will live without any legs or arms. These will suffer long after Bush has retired to his palace, and you are proven "wrong".
Sivaram Velauthapillai
If you really think the parties/countries/etc represent what they call themselves, I guess the Democratic Republic of Korea must be a democracy huh?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
If the economic system practiced allows capitalistic entities, it is not socialism. You CANNOT have private entities, especially wealthy people, under socialism. Economics is one half of socialism and if it differs from the ideology you cannot claim it is socialism. This is just like how you cannot really call say Canada socialist. Canada simply has socialist ideals but its core economic system is capitalism. If capitalism collapses (for example), Canada will collapse. Hence it isn't socialist. In contrast, if Canada were socialist, the collapse of capitalism will have no impact.
What the Nazis practiced can best be thought of as facism (politics) on top of capitalism (economics).
Having said all that, SOME people use a vague defintion of socialism which has nothing to do with the left-wing ideology followed by socialists (just like how some people use a vague definition of democracy which has nothing to do with true democracy). On top of that, the actions of the 2nd International (which is the "official" socialist body) is confusing at times (especially with respect to "free" trade).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
You are wrong!
Nazi Germany had little to do with socialism, other than the rhetoric. Germany was NOT run by the state. It was run by private businesses. Look it up. Germany was very capitalistic. Most of the industries were run by wealthy industrialists, and private entrepreneurs. In fact, the Jews, Gypsies, communists, homosexuals, etc were all forced to work as slaves for PRIVATE companies. Without capitalism, Germany would never had gone where it did (it's hard to ramp up socialism/communism/etc to a decent level in a short amount of time (eg. USSR, China, etc); capitalism, on the other hand, can be ramped up quickly)
You are also wrong with Nietche. Don't bring him into this. He had nothing to do with Nazism. Yes, his philosophy IS centered on fascism (the concept of super-class and so forth) but Nazis did not really use his philosophies. The only thing in common between Nietche and the Nazis is that the Nazis distributed his works to boost soldier morale but that's about it. That is to say, his philosophy was used for propaganda purposes but it did not impact the ideology. The ideology came out of a bunch of other stuff.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
First of all, the ASSUMPTION by everyone (I hope) is that it is battle between China and Taiwan WITHOUT USA. If USA was involved, it is a joke. USA has the largest military the world has ever seen; it spends more on it than the next 20 countries COMBINED: and it is far more advanced than anything else (stealth? satellites? etc). So if USA intervenes, it will defeat China (although casulties will be high).
I think the speculation is under the scenario where USA does NOT intervene.
second, china built the three gorges dam. they have so much capital (even in communist china!!) tied up in it, it generates such a large portionof power. and, it is impssible to defend from air ro missile attack. we could take it out in about 10 minutes. and they're fscking toast.
That's a war crime. That doesn't necessarily stop the hawks like you but the rest of the world won't be happy, just like how no one is going to stop you from using nuclear weapons but the rest of the world won't be happy. Some people actually calling for use of nuclear weapons during Vietnam but USA (thankfully) didn't use them.
i could go on further. the cuyrrent regime is on its last legs. this is an in ternal power struggle between the old commies and the younger reformers. nothing else.
I disagree... There is no struggle. Struggle between who? Who are the OLD Communists? If anything, it was the old ones that initiated the reforms. There is no struggle here. China is pretty solid. This is not a USSR.
--OFF TOPIC--
You justify the invasion of Iraq by citing the massacre of Kurds by Saddam. That's ok. But what do you say about the Kurds that were killed by Turkey with US weapons? They don't count? (You can get some information on the oppression faced by the Kurds here and here). Or what will you say when USA stabs the Kurds in the back? It seems to be headed that way. The handpicked Iraqi "government" is not exactly on good terms with the Kurds. Iraq is very close to a civil war. What will you say when the Kurds diagree with USA in..oh...1 year when the bogus US-picked government is sworn in?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
At least he capitalizes the word 'liberal'. I imagine he is talking about some Liberal Party instead of liberals in general. That's cool with me. Many Liberals are not liberals.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I don't think Mao's mass murder and Stalin's mass murder are the same. Mao's was directly related to his economic policies. He also had some bizarre idea with his cultural revolution (which has nothing to do with communism).
Stalin, on the other hand, killed people for political reasons. They were killed because they were his opponents. Nearly everyone Stalin killed were dissents.
In the end, a death is a death. However, one was political while other was economic.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The US would have to step to the line in the hopes that China would bow out. But once the US steps to the line, they can't bow out. If we did, what would our defense pacts with the Japanese, Koreas, Europeans, Israel etc mean?
As much as I dislike the guy, Charles de Gaulle said it best: "Countries have no friends; they only have interests!" I find that to be almost a truism. I personally think USA WILL stop defending Taiwan in 30 or so years. Once China ramps up its nukes to US levels, and once China becomes an economic superpower (some say it already is but I dont' think so), USA will have little interest in defending Taiwan. There is NO WAY USA will sacrifice itself by using nukes to defend Taiwan--that's just rhetoric.
Japan is looking to seperate from USA. They are trying to dismantle their pacifist constitution and develop an offensive military. There is even speculation that Japan may pursue nuclear weapons within a few decades. In any case, USA was never really protecting Japan. Japan was not an interest to USSR and China never posed a threat to Japan over the last 30 years. Even now, Japan will likely defeat China in a war (alone) whereas Taiwan won't. What USA did to Japan was to contain it. It prevented Japan from developing an offensive--and hence formidable--military force by claiming that it would protect it.
As far as Europe is concerned, the fall of USSR pretty much means that Europe doesn't care anymore. If anything, they are trying to build up their independent military force, which USA is unhappy about.
As far as Isreal is concerned, I'm not sure how long USA will protect it. Just like all other countries, the relationship is driven by interest. If USA feels that Isreal is not worth it, it will abandon it.
What I am saying (that USA dumping it allies and vice versa) might be shocking to the centrists and moderates but that is what has happened throughout the ages. For example, if someone said USA was attempting to cut ties with Saudi Arabia 20 years ago, you would be laughed at. Yet that is precisely what is happening. The interests (oil, control of middle east, etc) are still there but the downside (getting involved with middle east wars, terrorists targetting USA, etc) is starting to make the relationship unattractive.
Similarly, consider the US relationship with France and Britain. USA and France were VERY close during its independence days (and for about 100 years after that). Britain, in contrast, was an enemy of USA for its first 100 years or so. Now, France has less in common with USA than Britain. If anything, USA and Britain are close (although not as close as USA and France were in the 1700's).
That's why my philsophy is to always build up your country by yourself. If other countries help, fine. But just know that they are doing it for their own interests. The day will come when they will pack up and leave (when it doesn't serve their interests anymore).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Welcome to capitalism...
I should note that... as much as I hate capitalism, capitalism is actually very peaceful. War is actually bad for business! True capitalists generally stand against wars. CATO institution, the bastion of capitalism, generally criticizes US imperialist wars.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Talking about the CIA Factbook...
I, being a leftist, always wonder if the CIA factbook can be trusted (given that spy agencies are immoral, liers, and carry out all sort of heinious crimes). I know everyone uses it, but would anyone notice something if the CIA actually initiates propaganda through the Factbook (as opposed to tradional channels like television, news, etc)?
To see of the potential, consider this example. USA is having all sorts of problems in Iraq (check out antiwar.com to get stories that are ignored). USA is also claiming a desire to implement democracy (which it doesn't but I don't wnat to get into that). Let's say they hold an election in Iraq. Let's say there are voting "irregularities" (that's codeword for vote rigging). To manipulate Americans, and possibly others who rely on the CIA Factbook, the CIA can simply cook up some ethnic figures for Iraq. Instead of Shiite being 60%, they could change the figure to say 49% (they have to do this subtlely of course, but spy agents are good at this stuff (that's their whole job in life)). The US govt can reconcile a questionable election where say the Shiite only got 40% of the vote by claiming that they are only 49% of the population instead of 60%. So why trust the CIA Factbook? Would you notice something like that?
Of course, the example I cited is blatantly obvious and too easy to check. However, agents use more subtle techniques and the majority of the population won't pick it up, just like how the majority can't tell disinformation from expert propagandists (like USA, Britain, China, Russia).
Something to think about...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Also, it doesn't hurt if you keep most of your population at damn near the global poverty level.
Actually you have a greater chance of a revolt if people are poor than if they are rich. People in poorer countries are more likely to overthrow their governemnts than in rich countries, regardless of how free the country is.
If you are a totalitarian, you certainly do not want to keep people in poverty.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I am not that knowledgeable about US law (or for that matter, laws of any country) but I think USA protects people regardless of whether they are citizens or not. The reason the US govt is able to get away with Guantanamo Bay is not because they are non-citizens, but because it is not on US soil. The Bush administration is using a loophole which basically says that laws only apply to US territory. As a side note, if Patriot Act II gets passed (which will happen, when terrorists strike again), US citizens will lose literally ALL their rights because they can be sent to another country (In case you don't know, Patriot Act II allows the government to consider US citizens as "non-combatants"--right now only non-citizens have been given that status).
In any case, ideals are what matter; not the laws. Too bad conservatives like you don't realize that. USA is not free because of its laws; it's free because of its ideals.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
It would be naive to assume that China's threats aren't serious, but it's also ignorant to assume that the U.S. would stand idly by and watch this model democracy be destroyed by Communist thugs. It ain't gonna happen.
USA will protect Taiwan just like they protect Saudi Arabia. That is to say, as long as it is in their interest. But note how the neocons are mounting a campaign to start a war with Saudi Arabia. Same thing will happen with Taiwan. When Taiwan is deemed an "annoyance", it will be cut off. I suspect this will happen in around 30 years, just around the time China ramps up its nukes to US levels (5000+ warheads).
What's more, the Taiwan military are no slouches; they are a modern, well armed fighting force that would be highly motivated to fight if the island were to be attacked. China was able to knock over Tibet pretty easily, but invading Taiwan would be different; it would doubtless cost hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides, and there's no guarantee it would succeed, even if the U.S. finked out. And, of course, there are those rumored nuclear weapons in Taiwan's arsenal.
Taiwan has no nukes... Taiwan will easily lose to China. I don't think the casulties will hit hundreads of thousands (it'll be more like 50,000). I think casulties will be low because it will be easy for China to control Taiwan than say Japan (the cultures/languages/history/etc are similar; it's nothing like the US occupation of Iraq which is pretty much a foreign culture/language/etc). Taiwan may be more advanced but China isn't THAT badly off. I mean, China spends quite a bit on the latest Russian weapons too.
Having said this, China will not invade Taiwan any time soon (take that to mean at least 15 years). I don't even know why this is a story on slashdot. This war speculation is nothing more than propaganda put forth by conservative forces in USA. It is not in China's interest to invade Taiwan right now. Therefore, it won't happen. China's focus right now is its economy.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
There is no such thing as economic "common sense". Perhaps what you mean is imperialism. USA's control of Middle East oil is supposed to be "common sense" yet it is USA's biggest threat right now. Do you think the terrorists from the Middle East would be targetting USA if it didn't meddle in their affairs?
Or perhaps you mean capitalism? Or maybe "free trade"? I'm not quite sure what economic "common sense" is. Is the US embargo on Cuba common sense or not? USSR trading with Europe is an impossibility, given that one side was practicing capitalism and the other side was practicing a form of communism... it's like trying to get a liberatarian and a totalitarian to trade. Just isn't going to work...
Sivaram Velauthapillai