 sj |
||
|
||
Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq
|
|
|
Subject: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: GUEST,Sean Waltman Date: 01 Apr 03 - 09:40 PM A very interesting article by Nat Hentoff in the Village Voice. http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0314/hentoff.php http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0314/hentoff.php |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: GUEST,Sean Waltman Date: 01 Apr 03 - 09:41 PM Sorry, I forgot the BS prefix. This is a non-music post. |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: Little Hawk Date: 01 Apr 03 - 10:14 PM Yes, it is interesting...but not too surprising on the whole. I doubt that it has much, if anything, to do with the fact that the US and UK are invading Iraq. Stalin killed more people in Russia in the 30's than Hitler did in western Europe. Stalin's rule was utterly brutal. Did this justify Hitler's war of aggression against Russia? No. The USA enthusiastically supported Saddam even at his most brutal during the 1980's when he was killing Iranians (and Kurds) on behalf of the USA. The USA supported the Argentinian and Chilean generals when they were doing things just as brutal as what Saddam has done. The USA has supported death squads in Central America for years. The USA accused Saddam's men of killing babies in a Kuwaiti hospital in 1991 (the infamous "incubator" story)...and the story was totally, absolutely untrue...but everyone believed it at the time, including Amnesty International! I do not intend to be lulled into tacit support for unprovoked aggression on the strength of further such stories. Nat Hentoff has a right to his views, and I appreciate his concern, but I am more concerned about huge and very dangerous wars of aggression than I am about the excesses of this or that dictator who has been appointed convenient media demon of the hour by the USA. It's all way too familiar and predictable. By the way, the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan is a brutal and venal group of gunmen and opium dealers. The USA likes them for the moment, because they came in handy and they're good for business. Figure it out for yourself. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: GUEST,pdc Date: 01 Apr 03 - 10:28 PM I agree with every word from Little Hawk. To take things further, one extremely simple matter that no one seems to take into consideration is this: Yes, Saddam Hussein is one of the most evil, sadistic dictators in modern history. Yes, he should -- must -- be removed. BUT, bombing the people of Iraq in the Gulf War, and bombing the country again now just does not work! Who in Iraq has the most protection? Who has the nuclear bomb proof shelter? Who is surrounded by guards and militia? In other words, who would probably be the LAST to die? And who would be the first to die? Killing the people of Iraq, harming them through sanctions -- none of this has any effect on Saddam Hussein at all. If Iraqis aren't suffering inflicted by their own dictator, they are suffering from war and sanctions imposed on them by the USA. Even leaving out the moral aspect of this approach, it is simply illogical. |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: Sorcha Date: 01 Apr 03 - 10:39 PM And I agree with both of you. |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: Troll Date: 01 Apr 03 - 11:23 PM First off, the sanctions were imposed by YOUR precious and totally innefectual UNSC, NOT unilaterally by the US. You've been told that before. Why is it so hard to remember? Second, if Saddam is to be removed from power (you DO agree that he should be removed from power, don't you) just how in the name of common sense (look it up) do you propose to do it? Going back and dredging up policy from 25 years in the past hardly serves as justification for opposing Saddams removal now. The man and his cohorts are monsters and their removal from power should of paramount importance to anyone who cares about humanity. Yes, civilians will be killed and that is rightly to be deplored. but how many tens of thousands has the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein already murdered. They say that his sons are even worse than he is. If he is not stopped NOW how many more tens of thousands of Iraqis will die at the hands of these paranoid sadists. The Iraqiswant Saddam gone. But until they are sure that we (the US/UK) are in it for the long haul, they are not going to show overt support because if Saddam stays in power, he will have them and their families killed. As one Iraqi-American said and I paraphrase, you can protest the war, but do not presume to speak for the Iraqi people. Last, I have heard some call this war immoral. If anyone thinks that liberating a people from one of the most brutal dictatorships of our time is immoral, I am thankful that I do not share their definition of morality. troll |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: GUEST,pdc Date: 01 Apr 03 - 11:47 PM Hey, Troll: First of all the UNSC sanctions were put in place at the insistence of the US, which up until this year pretty well called all tunes at the UN, even though the US didn't pay its UN dues. Secondly, re-read my post, and you will see that I said nothing about morality: my last sentence was, "Even leaving out the moral aspect of this approach, it is simply illogical." Do a Google on the sanctions in Iraq, and you will see that the people suffered, not Saddam Hussein. He had enough food and medicine. So, even leaving out the moral aspect of sanctions, they were illogical. GWB has just asked for $75 billion for the war. It occurs to me that for, say, $10 million, they could have purchased Saddam's death from inside Iraq. |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: Troll Date: 02 Apr 03 - 12:15 AM It occurs to you wrong. Saddam is so paranoid that no one comes near him except those in the inner circle. If he presents a medal to someone, they are strip-searched and must wash their hands in disinfectants lest they deliberately infect him. They are not allowed to touch him unless he makes the frist move and then only for an instant. His bodyguards are highly trained and intensely loyalto him. There have been attempts on his life but they have all failed and, if the assassin could be identified, his entire family was killed in rather nasty ways. The infamous plastics chipper comes to mind. I can't think of anyone offhand who whoul be willing to risk all that, not even for 10 mil. Of course it was the people who suffered under the sanctions. But our politicians couldn't see that Saddam would sacrifice his entire population to maintain power. He even robbed them under the "Oil for Food" scheme as has been douumented in Time Magazine in the issue they devoted to him and repeated on this Forum. The morality comments were not aimed at anyone specific. It was more of a shotgun blast in the general direction of those who claim the war is immoral. We've already established that diplomacy won't work. For dipolmacy to work. each side must negotiate in good faith and want to work things out. All Sadam wants is to continue in power as he has in the past. If you have a suggestion, GUEST,pdc, trot it out and lets all have a look. troll |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: Little Hawk Date: 02 Apr 03 - 12:26 AM Well, you see, the problem is that it is not Saddam they're really after. They are after Iraq itself. Saddam is simply the red herring to lead the American public (like a bloodhound) down the trail to war. He is no longer useful for killing Iranians, but he is useful for enlarging the American/Israeli/British Empire, at the cost of Iraqui lives and sovereignty. If the USA succeeds in removing Saddam, they will install a few compliant bastards of their own in Iraq, and the dirty game will continue...probably into an attack on Iran. The USA and the EU are jockeying for turf in the post-Soviet World. That's what it amounts to. The Russians are hoping to ally with the western Europeans (who would be wise to do just that, but may not feel they need to). The U.N. is just a formerly compliant American tool that has slipped from America's hands recently, due to unbelievably incompetent USA diplomacy and due to the fracturing of the Western Alliance. New power blocs are emerging in the vacuum that the Soviets left, and Iraq is their momentary battlefield of convenience. Saddam's brutality is merely convenient to those who wish to have a "moral" excuse for conquering Iraq. If Saddam did not exist, the USA would be obliged to invent him, at this point. When he's gone, they'll find another demon for the American public to obsess over. It's all marketing, folks...like on TV. To watch the coverage of this war, you'd think it was a football game or a TV mini-series. Orwell was only scratching the surface. He did not realize what aggressive consumerist marketing could do. It's much more persuasive than sober, boring, socialist centralization...because it panders to every appetite, excess, indulgence, greed, and addiction known to man. That's why it has succeeded so far, but it's sick at the very core, because it is completely amoral, and very shortsighted. The marketing system depends on people being too busy, too distracted, and too overloaded with the little daily matters of life to be able to figure out what in the world is happening to their lives in the process. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: GUEST,pdc Date: 02 Apr 03 - 12:31 AM I agree with Troll that it would be nearly impossible to get near Saddam Hussein, even for his advisors. And perhaps I'm being naive, but I can't help but think that through intelligence efforts, bribery, infiltration, whatever -- that something could have been done from inside Iraq without attacking the population. Perhaps I'm wrong. I also have a question: Why Saddam Hussein? (On the other hand, why not?) Why not any of the other equally vicious, sadistic, evil dictators in the world? |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: DougR Date: 02 Apr 03 - 01:04 AM troll, you dummy! Why do you persist in presenting FACTS to these folks? They do not want to be confused by facts! Geeze! I tell you, and I tell you! :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: GUEST,pdc Date: 02 Apr 03 - 01:10 AM To DougR: What facts has Troll presented? What evidence does he have for any facts he has presented? I think you are confused -- most people in this forum are presenting opinions, suggestions, hopes. But when Troll says: "Saddam is so paranoid that no one comes near him except those in the inner circle. If he presents a medal to someone, they are strip-searched and must wash their hands in disinfectants lest they deliberately infect him. They are not allowed to touch him unless he makes the frist move and then only for an instant. His bodyguards are highly trained and intensely loyalto him. There have been attempts on his life but they have all failed and, if the assassin could be identified, his entire family was killed in rather nasty ways." or something similar, I would like to know how he knows. If he was an inside man in the regime, why didn't he kill Saddam? |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: GUEST Date: 02 Apr 03 - 01:19 AM "We can truly say that the whole circuit of the earth is girdled with the graves of our dead . . . and, in the course of my pilgrimage, I have many times asked myself whether there can be more potent advocates of peace upon earth through the years to come, than this massed multitude of silent witnesses to the desolation of war." King George V, Flanders, 1922 |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: DougR Date: 02 Apr 03 - 01:52 AM Question: who really gives a rat's ass what Hentoff thinks? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: Troll Date: 02 Apr 03 - 02:00 AM Fair question. A lot of my information came from a series of articles in Time. Some came from articles from the Drudge Report or one of his links. Someone (I don't recall who) has done a psychological profile on Saddam, based on info from members of his inner circle who have defected. One such was his son-in-law, who defected and then went back. He was killed. Other bits came from Fox News and/or CNN. I can't give you specific articles. There are too many of them and I tend to use some from here and some from there, usually just the relavent parts. I try not to leave out anything that would affect the meaning of the article however. I find quotes taken out of context intellectually dishonest. troll |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: Teribus Date: 02 Apr 03 - 05:02 AM From Little Hawk - who I can only assume is fully sincere in believing what he has written, we have two statements: "Well, you see, the problem is that it is not Saddam they're really after. They are after Iraq itself. Saddam is simply the red herring to lead the American public (like a bloodhound) down the trail to war. He is no longer useful for killing Iranians, but he is useful for enlarging the American/Israeli/British Empire, at the cost of Iraqui lives and sovereignty. If the USA succeeds in removing Saddam, they will install a few compliant bastards of their own in Iraq, and the dirty game will continue...probably into an attack on Iran." And earlier he said: "The USA enthusiastically supported Saddam even at his most brutal during the 1980's when he was killing Iranians (and Kurds) on behalf of the USA." My question for Little Hawk is this. In your earlier statement regarding the USA's enthusiastic support, why did it take the US so long to get involved in the Iran-Iraq War? A war, incidentally, that Saddam Hussein started. It would after all have been much easier to get into it right at the start, if the US were so hell bent on killing Iranians and destroying Iran. Another little anomaly, why did the US supply Iran with weapons? America's master plan as outlined by Little Hawk is so convoluted as to defy logic, being as it is based on; a backward look at events; a selection of various isolated incidents; then a process of connecting those events to others, completely ignoring the time-line and circumstances; then application of all that to the current situation, to present, as proof positive of, the USA's manifest ill intent towards the world in general. Excuse my French - F**king Ridiculous. |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: katlaughing Date: 02 Apr 03 - 05:38 AM Troll, you paraphrased an Iraqi as saying "don't speak for the Iraqi people," yet you did just that, apparently, when you said The Iraqis want Saddam gone. I'm just pointing it out as a kind of contradiction, that's all. |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: GUEST,Sean Waltman Date: 02 Apr 03 - 08:52 AM Well, you see, the problem is that it is not Saddam they're really after. They are after Iraq itself. Saddam is simply the red herring to lead the American public (like a bloodhound) down the trail to war. He is no longer useful for killing Iranians, but he is useful for enlarging the American/Israeli/British Empire, at the cost of Iraqui lives and sovereignty. Little Hawk, Congratulations, you've done an excellent job of parapharising Pat Buchanan. Israel (i.e. Jewish interests) is behind the war in Iraq. Who needs extreme right wing radio when you've got Little Hawk? |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: CarolC Date: 02 Apr 03 - 09:39 AM GUEST,pdc, you apparently aren't aware of the DougR Rule Book of Fact VS Fiction. According to the DRBFVF, if something is posted by DougR, troll, Teribus, or Claymore, it is a fact. If something is posted that is in opposition to anything posted by the above four people, it is a fiction. |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: CarolC Date: 02 Apr 03 - 09:53 AM Here are some other interesting articles by Nat Hentoff: The American Way of Torture Our Designated Killers |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: CarolC Date: 02 Apr 03 - 10:05 AM Of course, the other side of the "speaking for Iraqis" debate can be found in articles like this one: Saying No to Liberation There seems to be a backlash occuring among Iraqis in exile in other coutries. Many of them have become so pissed off with the invasion of Iraq by US and UK forces, they are deciding to go back to Iraq to fight for their country, against the US and the UK. |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: Wolfgang Date: 02 Apr 03 - 10:34 AM It is interesting for me to read the other articles by Hentoff. They give more weight to his target opinion in my eyes. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: Troll Date: 02 Apr 03 - 10:57 AM kat, I see no contradiction. I was not trying to speak FOR anyone. I was merely repeating what I have read and heard on the news. This is the only knowledge I have on the subject. It would appear, however, that ,based on the reports from the embedded journalists, the Iraqis in the areas that have been cleared of Saddams forces are beginning to believe that the Coalition Forces are serious about destroying Saddams regime. They are telling the reporters that they will be happy when the fear of Saddams thugs no longer rules their lives. Again, I speak for no but myself unless specifically asked to. I read the article 'Saying No To Liberation'. Nowhere did I see any indication that anyone quoted or mentioned in the article wanted Saddam to remain in power. The major thread seemed to be a fear that the Coallition forces would simply replace Saddam. Their fear is understandable. It's been a long, long time since they have seen anyone in a position of power that cared about them. That's why they were so unset about Rumallah. They feel that the Coallition cared more about the oil than about the people. The truth is, that if Saddam had been able to sabotage the wells and the oil transfer manifold, it could have taken several years to get the oil flowing again, and all during that time, the Iraqi people would have NO money coming in. As it is they will get the money when the oil is sold on the world market; money from which THEY will reap the full benefit instead of seeing the bulk of it swallowed up by Saddams military machine and his personal fortune. As has been stated before, if we simply wanted oil, we would have taken it in '91 when we pretty well owned both Iraq and Kuwait. The other possibility would be to invade Venezuela, which has a highly unstable government and is a whole lot closer to the US. troll |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: Teribus Date: 02 Apr 03 - 11:09 AM "There seems to be a backlash occuring among Iraqis in exile in other coutries. Many of them have become so pissed off with the invasion of Iraq by US and UK forces, they are deciding to go back to Iraq to fight for their country, against the US and the UK." I sincerely hope that as many as possible avail themselves of the opportunity. Such patriotism, nobility of purpose, selflessness, should indeed be afforded every opportunity for self-expression - David Blunkett will be pleased as hell as well, as it sort of blows the asylum seeker stories right out of the water. In Norway they have been told you may go by all means but you ain't getting back in after the dust has settled. |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: Little Hawk Date: 02 Apr 03 - 11:14 AM Just because a people have suffered grievously in the past (as have the Jewish people) does not mean that they themselves may not be tagged for wrongdoing when they cause others (Palestinians and Arabs) to suffer grievously in the present. People who object to this, and react viciously against anyone who dares to accuse Israel of any wrongdoing are zealouts. They are fanatics. They are living in the past. And they are, in their psychology, just like the Palestinian fanatics who blow up themselves and innocent Israeli citizens in marketplaces. And they are also akin to the extreme right wing radio you refer to, Sean Waltman. I am not. I name wrongdoing regardless of who is doing it. I name it if Israelis are doing it. I name it if blacks are doing it. I name it if whites are doing it. I name it if Arabs are doing it. I name it if North American aboriginals are doing. I name it if the USA is doing it. I'm different from many people in that I am not so afraid to name it. If I was a politician, I would have to be much more careful what I said, however! That does not make me part of the right wing radio fanatics you link me with (I am their natural enemy, pal!). You can't see it, because I suspect when it comes to Israel (or any Jewish-connected issue) you are purblind on the subject, and would support Zionists even if they were burning people in ovens by the tens of thousands. Stop worrying about me, and take a look at your own fanaticisim. There are no people on this Earth who are sacrosanct due to past suffering, and are now above criticism, due merely to their skin color, nationality, religion, political designation, or any other distinguishing feature you can come up with. There are people of a good and a bad nature in ALL identifiable groups, and any group can sometimes be wrong in its actions. As for FACTS...(re Doug R)...this is how it works. A "fact" is something Doug agrees with. Something he doesn't agree with isn't a fact (or if it is, it's not an important fact). In this respect, Doug is very much like most other people, so he should not be unduly criticied for it, but merely be given a gentle reminder of how it works from time to time. :-) Like Doug, I also give little weight to facts which I consider...unimportant. Like I've said before, we're ALL subjective when it comes to politics. Right, Sean? - LH |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: GUEST,pdc Date: 02 Apr 03 - 12:06 PM Troll, you state: "Nowhere did I see any indication that anyone quoted or mentioned in the article wanted Saddam to remain in power. The major thread seemed to be a fear that the Coallition forces would simply replace Saddam. Their fear is understandable. It's been a long, long time since they have seen anyone in a position of power that cared about them." I'm sorry, but you simply cannot be naive enough to think that GWB has invaded Iraq as an act of altruism. |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: Sean Waltman Date: 02 Apr 03 - 01:03 PM Little Hawk, You -- like Pat Buchanan -- are the one who made the link between Israel and the war in Iraq. You are the one who said the war was an effort at enlarging the American/Israeli/British Empire. You say that I'm trying to link you with right wing radio fanatics. No, I haven't tried to do that at all. I pointed out that such rhetoric is not exclusive to right wing wing nuts, that there are people on the left who share that rhetoric. Now, you talk about me and say I am purblind on the subject, and would support Zionists even if they were burning people in ovens by the tens of thousands. First of all, I've said nothing of the sort. If you knew anything about me, you'd know that I am an active member of Peace Now, a group that has been working for peace, and against the Israeli right wing, for many years. However, as a Jew, I must say that your innuendo in linking Zionism with Nazism is absolutely nauseating. That is the kind of cheap trick that I'd expect from someone like Pat Buchanan. |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: CarolC Date: 02 Apr 03 - 01:07 PM I sincerely hope that as many as possible avail themselves of the opportunity. Such patriotism, nobility of purpose, selflessness, should indeed be afforded every opportunity for self-expression - David Blunkett will be pleased as hell as well, as it sort of blows the asylum seeker stories right out of the water. In Norway they have been told you may go by all means but you ain't getting back in after the dust has settled. What in the world are you talking about, Teribus? Is it that you just hate Iraqis generally? |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: Amos Date: 02 Apr 03 - 01:13 PM "Good news for Iraq. There's a 50 percent chance that President Bush will confuse it with Iran." Craig Kilborn |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: GUEST,Forum Lurker Date: 02 Apr 03 - 01:27 PM Little Hawk-Exactly what makes you think that Israel supports the war in Iraq? Is it the fact that they are not a member of the "coalition of the willing," the fact that terrorist attacks on Israelis are on the rise as a result of this war, or simply the assumption that Sharon wants to kill as many Arabs as he can? |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: CarolC Date: 02 Apr 03 - 01:28 PM For Sean Waltman and others who think it's only nuts of one wing or another who think Israel has been involved in the decision for the US to go to war with Iraq: I've heard some of the top government people in Israel argue vociferously in support of war with Iraq before the Bush government was even pushing hard for it. Last year, right about this time, I saw Benjamin Netanyahu on US television, speaking to a US audience, saying that the US should just go in and remove Saddam from power. Someone objected, saying we can't just start a war with another country like that. He said, " Yes you can. You just do it. You don't need anyone's permission, you just go in and do it." And this from another thread, in case Sean missed it: As far as anything Israel might or might not have to do with the reason for the war in Iraq, here is a paper written by an Israeli think tank back when Benjamin Netanyahu was Prime Minister. One of the authors of this paper was Richard Perle. Perle is on the Advisory Board of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), and up until recenty was the chairman of the Defense Policy Board, a (US) Defense Department advisory group. He still serves on that board. A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm "Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right" |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: Sean Waltman Date: 02 Apr 03 - 02:21 PM Last year, right about this time, I saw Benjamin Netanyahu on US television, speaking to a US audience, saying that the US should just go in and remove Saddam from power. Someone objected, saying we can't just start a war with another country like that. He said, " Yes you can. You just do it. You don't need anyone's permission, you just go in and do it." CarolC, Last year, right about this time, Benjamin Netanyahu, held no public office in Israel. Later, he had a very brief tenure in the Israeli cabinent. A post to which he was not reappointed following the latest elections. Suggesting that an out-of-office Benjamin Netanyahu, on some American TV show, speaks for Israel, is like suggesting that an is like suggesting that an out-of-office Margaret Thatcher speaks for Great Britain or that an out-of-office Bill Clinton speaks for America. Clearly that is not the case. Then you bring up a paper written by an Israeli think tank back when Benjamin Netanyahu was Prime Minister and try to paint that as Israeli public policy. First of all, just as in the United States, or any other western democracy, there are Israeli think tanks of all political persuasion representing all manner of political opinion. That doesn't mean that any of them speak for the government, the country or the people. There have been three Israeli elections and governments since Netanyahu was prime minister. By your logic, a paper prepared by an American think tank, back when Ronald Reagan was president, speaks for the American government. That is nonsense. |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: Sean Waltman Date: 02 Apr 03 - 02:28 PM BTW, I am in touch with many people in Israel. Some support the war, some are against it. The same is true among Jews here. I have seen polling data that shows American Jews are in favor of the war, and against the war, in the same proportion as the general population. Also, please note that my objection was to Little Hawk's blaming the war on the American/Israeli/British Empire. That is Buchanan-speak. |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: CarolC Date: 02 Apr 03 - 02:40 PM Benjamin Netanyahu is a spokesman for the Likud party, whether or not he is currently in office. So using your analogy, if Bob Dole says we should go to war with Iraq, I'm going to seriously consider the possibility that what he is saying is representative the Republican Party's stance on the subject. And if I hear several or many high profile members of the Republican Party saying the same thing, you bet I'm going to see that position as being representative of his party. Now, with regard to the Israeli think tank paper, perhaps you didn't read my post very carefully. Richard Perle does serve the US government as a high level advisor to the Pentagon. He was one of the authors of that paper from the Israeli think tank. If the US government carries out the agenda spelled out in the paper from the Israeli think tank, while one of the members of that think tank is serving in a high level advisory capacity to the Pentagon, you bet I'm going to be looking at a possible connection between Israel and the current war with Iraq. To do otherwise, one would have to be, as LH put it, purblind on the subject. And I will go even one step farther. Based on what I have read in that paper from the Israeli think tank, I predict that the US government will target Syria next for possible military action. And then Iran. (Possibly Iran first, but I doubt it.) If that happens, remember, you read it here first. If that doesn't happen, I will be delighted to have been wrong about it. |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: Sean Waltman Date: 02 Apr 03 - 02:48 PM CarolC, I'm outta here, there's no arguing with your illogic. BTW, the Likud Party garnered about 30% of the vote in the recent Israeli election. And I would tend to think that their leader, Sharon, not Netanyahu, who was rejected by the party, speaks for them. Just for the record, my moral support in Israeli politics is for Amram Mitzna and the Labor Party. Bye now. |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: CarolC Date: 02 Apr 03 - 03:23 PM Ok. Sean. Bye yourself. Btw, Little Hawk is Canadian. He castigates the US regularly. But I know as an American, and as his friend, that when he does that, he's not criticizing the US people. He's criticizing the power elite in the US government. When he criticizes Israel, he's not criticizing the Israeli people, or Jews. He's criticizing the power elite in the Israeli government. You're the one who brought Jews into this discussion. |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: CarolC Date: 02 Apr 03 - 03:53 PM P.S. I just checked out Amram Mitzna. He looks promising. I'll be interested to see how things develop with him. |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: Troll Date: 02 Apr 03 - 05:30 PM GUEST,pdc. Where did I EVER suggest THAT. Of course it's not from altruism. Bush wants the US to have a powerful friend in the Middle East other than Israel. This may accomplist that goal. If not, we've rid the world of a dangerous nusance so the whole thing won't be a total loss and the US can hold itself up as the champion of the oppressed. Whether anyone ELSE but us will believe it is another matter but a bit of luck and some spin control should take care of that, at lease in diplomatic circles. They deal mostly in half-truths anyhow. troll |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: Forum Lurker Date: 02 Apr 03 - 05:39 PM Troll-The few Iraqis who will think of us favorably will be drowned out by the other Arab nations who fear that this is just the beginning of U.S. imperialism in the Middle East. |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: Little Hawk Date: 03 Apr 03 - 12:04 AM Sean - Fair enough. I figured you were making a baseless assumption or two about me, so I seem to have made a baseless assumption or two about you. It happens. Pardon me for having done so. You say that you are " an active member of Peace Now, a group that has been working for peace, and against the Israeli right wing, for many years." Great. Bravo! I applaud you for that. I do have objections to Zionism and to Israeli government policy, both foreign and domestic. I do not have objections to Jews, as individuals or as a people. I do think that it often happens that a terribly persecuted people can be traumatized to such an extent that the more vengeful and aggressive among them become persecutors themselves. Why? Because they have a big chip on their shoulders. I've seen it happen with some Native Americans (and I have deeply loved Native American values all my life). I've seen unbelievable arrogance and close-mindedness on the part of certain zealots among them, allied with an innate sense of superiority over non-Native Americans and a tremendous burden of prejudice against whites. This is not healthy, nor does it assist the cause of Native Americans. I've seen precisely the same thing happen with certain blacks, again because of their vengeful response to past (and present) wrongs committed against their kinsmen by whites. Again, it doesn't help. I've seen it happen with the Israelis. I do consider their apartheid regime, their settlement of other people's lands (taken by military force in various conflicts over the past few decades), and their blitzkrieg tactics to be very reminiscent of Nazism... The victim can become the next perpetrator. It often happens. I think Israel has a great deal to gain from this war on Iraq (if it succeeds), and I am not alone in thinking so. The reason they are not an official member of the coalition is the same as in the past. The USA realizes that it's very hard to get the more compliant Arab states onside in a Middle East war once Israel is actively involved in the fighting...and it could destabilize "friendly" regimes and contribute to Islamic revolutions that would topple them. Thus Israel appears to stand aside so that won't happen. This is practical divide-and-conquer politics vis a vis the Arabs, and not too hard to decipher. I wish you the best in your peace efforts, and I will not label you so glibly again...I'm just accustomed to getting what amounts to outright hatemail whenever I publicly criticize Israel, to the point that I often avoid even mentioning the country...and just skirt around it somehow. It's not worth the hassle. That is what I call a situation which is way out of hand, when one has to shrink back in fear and remain silent, rather than expressing an honest opinion. It's even worse when one is a politician. This is not what my father fought for in 1944-45 when he helped bring down Hitler's Germany on the hard road from Normandy to Prague, Czechoslovakia. He fought for equal justice for all people, not the demonization of one and the canonization of another. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: Teribus Date: 03 Apr 03 - 01:45 AM CarolC, I hate no one generally, or in particular. I just find it slightly amusing that the hundreds, if not thousands, of people who came knocking at the doors of various european countries claiming asylum as refugees fleeing Saddam's reign of terror in fear of their lives, are now signing up to return to Iraq and die for him. For years some have contended that these asylum seekers were not political, but economic refugees. Those people were cried down for suggesting such a thing - events and the behaviour of the "volunteers" seems to bear out that contention though. |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: Little Hawk Date: 03 Apr 03 - 09:21 AM teribus - Well, there are Cuban exiles who hate Castro too, and at the same time I have met plenty of Cubans (living in Cuba) who respect and admire Castro and feel that he has done great things for the country and its people. I also met some in Cuba who were quite critical of Castro. It ran the gamut. So? In any country where there has been a revolution, a war, a struggle between opposing forces...there will be people on both sides of the given issue who are very partisan. There will be people who love the winners and people who hate them. There will be people helped by the winners and people hurt by them. This was also true of the 13 American colonies in 1775-1779. The population was bitterly divided. Many of the loyalists fled to Canada at the conclusion of the war, and fought against the USA in 1812. There were stories repeated of atrocities on both sides. So? It's absolutely obvious that Saddam is a bad guy. It's equally obvious that Pinochet and the Argentinian generals were bad guys, plus any number of other dictators who have been funded and aided by America. I object to the war not because Saddam is not a bad guy, but because the war was totally unnecessary, and was launched in spite of weapons inspections, not because of them. It's an unnecessary war of aggression, being fought for hidden economic reasons, not the moral ones that are touted to the public. I don't doubt that Iraquis will continue to be found who hate Saddam, and Iraquis will continue to be found who hate American and the UK. People who have one prejudice will quote the former, people who have the other will quote the latter. Ding! - LH |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: Teribus Date: 03 Apr 03 - 10:41 AM Sorry Little Hawk - I haven't a clue what you are rabbiting on about. |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: Metchosin Date: 03 Apr 03 - 11:55 AM Teribus, perhaps the following middle eastern quote might help with your understanding of why some are returning to Iraq. Recent interviews I've seen, would indicate that some are pretty torn up about their decision and it was not undertaken lightly, but to a man, they are united in the understanding that the land of their birth has been invaded and their friends and relatives are being killed. You may scoff, but many "economic migrants" who came to Canada enlisted and returned to Europe during the First and Second WWs for that very same reason. I have no doubt that if the US and Britain decided to invade Mexico, a lot of Americans would be short of field workers, gardeners and housemaids. Me against my bother My brother and I against our cousin My cousin, my brother and I against our neighbour My neighbour, my cousin, my brother and I, against the stranger. |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: Teribus Date: 03 Apr 03 - 12:23 PM M, See that quite plainly, just as plain as the lie of someone who states that he has fled the evil regime in his country because he has been falsely imprisoned, beaten, tortured by that regime and dare not stay because his life would be in danger. The next thing you hear he is volunteering to go back - had the same guy toddled up to the Customs and Immigration people at Heathrow and said I am a bloke who wants to come in to your country and earn a bit of money and improve my lot in life by way of your political asylum system - he would have been put on the next plane back. The one unfortunate thing that is also just as plain - if they do go back to fight, be it for Saddam Hussein, or not - they will die, sure as eggs are eggs. |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: Ebbie Date: 03 Apr 03 - 12:56 PM But until they are sure that we (the US/UK) are in it for the long haul, they are not going to show overt support because if Saddam stays in power, he will have them and their families killed. troll, the strange thing is that I have NOT heard the 'right' side criticize the US under Bush pere's lack of support for the Iraqi citizens in the last war there. Why is that? Is criticizing senior Bush going too far? I'm sure that DougR is waiting with bated breath for your answer so that he can enthuse: See? That's why! :) |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: CarolC Date: 03 Apr 03 - 01:30 PM Difficult as this may be for you to believe, Teribus, there are a lot of Iraqis in exile who hate Saddam Hussein and want to see him gone, but who hate what they see the US and UK doing to their country even more than they hate Saddam. This is what they have said anyway. You will probably make the assumption that they are lying. But if you do that, I will presume that you make that assumption, not because of the truth of the matter, but just because they are Iraqis, and therefore not to be believed. |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: Little Hawk Date: 03 Apr 03 - 02:00 PM You may just be the definitive proof, teribus, that the unexamined life is not worth living... :-) You can't examine a coin properly unless you are willing to look at both sides. To do that, you must get off the side you habitually stand on, so you can actually see it...at least for a minute or two. You can always get back on again, after all...so what's the big risk? Afraid you might be wrong? Hell, we've all been wrong numerous times about numerous things, and we're all still here. Being "wrong" may seem like death to your ego, but it isn't. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: Teribus Date: 04 Apr 03 - 03:12 AM Little Hawk, Re your post above: "You can't examine a coin properly unless you are willing to look at both sides." Bit like the pot calling the kettle black - I have yet to see any example of you following your own advice. CarolC, "...there are a lot of Iraqis in exile who hate Saddam Hussein and want to see him gone, but who hate what they see the US and UK doing to their country even more than they hate Saddam. This is what they have said anyway. You will probably make the assumption that they are lying." We are talking about those who have fled Iraq and are now volunteering to return to fight for their homeland. Where those people lied was when they entered the country presently giving them sanctuary and according them political refugee status, saying that they were escaping from a country where if they stay they are in fear of their lives. They have lied for economic reasons and in having told their lies convincingly they have robbed a genuine asylum seeker of a safe haven. As I said in my first response to this subject (raised by yourself) I would arrange flights for them to ensure that their wishes were granted, on one condition - that having got there, they accept that having made their free choice they hold noone else responsible for their fate. The same thing happened throughout the Gulf states during the Yom Kippur war in 1973. Thousands of people demanded that their employers release them from their jobs so that they could go and be part of the destruction of Israel. I was there at the time. The company I was working for arranged travel up to Kuwait from where they were going to make their way to join the fight. The only thing that went wrong was that on setting out it looked as though Egypt and Syria were going to win, by the time they got to Kuwait, Israel had successfully countered the initial attack and had gone over to the offensive - not one of those who had so valiantly declared their intent to fight the Israelis on behalf of their Palestinian brothers took one more step towards the area of conflict. |
|
Subject: RE: An article for our thoughtful American friends From: An Pluiméir Ceolmhar Date: 04 Apr 03 - 11:02 AM Here's an article which articulates many of the reactions to the war which I share, but written by someone who is more familiar with US history, and expressed in terms which might let our sincerely patriotic and thoughtful American friends realise how much of the rest of the world views their country's current behaviour. Article by Jonathan Freedland. |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: Little Hawk Date: 04 Apr 03 - 12:27 PM teribus - You're wrong. I often question my own rationale, and I am quite inclined to recognize the humanity and good intentions of people on "the other side" of a given argument (though occasionally I lose my temper and say something thoughtless in the heat of the moment). I have greatly changed my opinion of George Bush in the last few weeks, mostly due to reading a very interesting book about him by 2 Texas reporters who've know him for decades. I actually kind of like George Bush now in some respects, where I used to just despise him. I still disagree with his policies just as I did before, but I see him differently because I know more about him as a person now. Try playing some music. It does wonders for my state of mind when I do. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: CarolC Date: 04 Apr 03 - 01:06 PM We are talking about those who have fled Iraq and are now volunteering to return to fight for their homeland. Where those people lied was when they entered the country presently giving them sanctuary and according them political refugee status, saying that they were escaping from a country where if they stay they are in fear of their lives. They have lied for economic reasons and in having told their lies convincingly they have robbed a genuine asylum seeker of a safe haven. What evidence do you have that these people were lying? Pure conjecture on your part? And how do you know that those particular people entered the countries they were in (many of them were in Jordan) using "political assylum" as their way of getting in? Pure conjecture on your part? |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: Troll Date: 04 Apr 03 - 09:01 PM Ebbie, I have said it before and I'll say it again. Bush pere has a lot of sins to answer for and that is one of the major sins. In a way, I guess I helped elect Clinton because I refused to vote for him in '92, primarily because of his desertion of the Kurds and Iraqi Shi'ites. I don't know how anyone else feels. I speak only for myself. troll |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: Teribus Date: 05 Apr 03 - 02:45 AM CarolC, Go back to the post of mine where I responded to yours re back-lash, and to my post in response to your contention that I must hate all Iraqi's - I think in that in the first, it is fairly obvious that I am specifically refering to Iraqi's who sought asylum in the UK (David Plunkett - UK Home Secretary) and the Norwegian Governments stance. In the second post of mine that I refer you to I specifically refer to those who have sought asylum in European countries. "What evidence do you have that these people were lying? Pure conjecture on your part?" Conjecture, possibly, but if someone tells me one minute that they have fled their country to escape oppression and fear for their lives at the hands of the regime in power, and wish to avail themselves of the protection afforded by my country, then the next, are telling me that their most earnest desire is to return to their country to fight to keep that same regime in power - something tells me that the story I was originally told was a lie and that their real reason for coming to my country was based on economics not politics. "And how do you know that those particular people entered the countries they were in (many of them were in Jordan) using "political assylum" as their way of getting in? Pure conjecture on your part?" No conjecture at all in this respect with regard to the UK - Home Office statistics bear out the vast and rapid increase in those seeking political asylum in the UK. |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: CarolC Date: 06 Apr 03 - 09:56 AM Conjecture, possibly, but if someone tells me one minute that they have fled their country to escape oppression and fear for their lives at the hands of the regime in power, and wish to avail themselves of the protection afforded by my country, then the next, are telling me that their most earnest desire is to return to their country to fight to keep that same regime in power - something tells me that the story I was originally told was a lie and that their real reason for coming to my country was based on economics not politics. You may not understand how someone could do this without economic motives, but I can. As I said before, the people whose interviews I read said they hate Saddam and his regime, and they are not fighting to help keep him in power. They are going back to fight to keep what they consider to be an invader out of their country. They hate Saddam, but they hate the "invaders" even more. So I think your idea about what these people's motives are will have to remain in the realm of speculation. |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: Teribus Date: 06 Apr 03 - 10:34 AM Poor beggars, they can't win either way: "...the people whose interviews I read said they hate Saddam and his regime, and they are not fighting to help keep him in power. They are going back to fight to keep what they consider to be an invader out of their country. They hate Saddam, but they hate the "invaders" even more." Successfully fight off the invaders and Saddam remains in power - if they are still alive, they have to flee the country all over again. |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: CarolC Date: 06 Apr 03 - 03:39 PM I don't know if you noticed, Teribus, but people in the Middle East are faced with terrible choices like that all the time. This is nothing new. |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: Little Hawk Date: 06 Apr 03 - 07:59 PM It's nothing new in Latin America, Africa, or Asia either, depending on your particular location. You can live a quiet little life and hope to be left alone...which may or may not happen. You can get involved in politics, cross your heart, and hope to die...either by the local despot or by his opposition, domestic or foreign. People make such choices according to their own basic nature...or the choice is made for them by somebody else. Too often, the latter. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: DougR Date: 07 Apr 03 - 01:23 AM The conversation in this thread has gone somewhat astray. In the article cited, Nat Hentoff states why he is not "marching" this time around. I must confess that my first post was made before I read the article, and I should not have posted it. I since have read it, and I think he makes a lot of sense. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: Troll Date: 07 Apr 03 - 02:13 AM Does anyone think that the Iraqi people would be better off in the long run if Saddam Hussein was left in power? Please do not give a "no but not the way it's being done" or a simple "yes". Whatever the amswer, please give reasons for your decision. troll |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: DougR Date: 07 Apr 03 - 12:56 PM No, I do not troll. Saddam has mistreated the Iraqi people for decades, and when he is gone, they will have an opportunity to live the kind of life they should expect. Even if they find no WMDs, freeing the Iraqi people was reason enough for this war in my opinion. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: Greg F. Date: 07 Apr 03 - 01:48 PM my first post was made before I read the article Nothing new. |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: GUEST,petr Date: 07 Apr 03 - 05:52 PM I wonder how many condemned the Vietnamese for invading Cambodia and taking it over from the Khmer Rouge. It certainly wasnt sanctioned by the UN, there was no threat of imminent war on Vietnam it was in fact a totally illegal invasion. Certainly they didnt invade for humanitarian or altruistic reasons. Yet no one complained, because they knew the horrors that Khmer Rouge had committed. Likewise for Idi AMin, Bokassa etc. Michael Ignatieff, the Canadian writer, and human rights activist when asked whether this is a just war, said "you can argue about Past US policy or whether war is always wrong , but those are abstract concepts - the only concrete issue is what is best for the Iraqi people, even though Saddams regime is a brutal regime (and youd be hard pressed to find one that is worse) that is not enough to invade, but taken together with the fact that Saddam has been seeking to acquire wmd's that makes him dangerous and one that in the long run cannot be "contained". there are plenty of nasty dictators around but how many have the oil income to try to acquire wmds. certainly the sanctions failed to work, they impoverished the people of Iraq while Saddams sanction busting exports got him 6 billion US a year, which he happily spent on weapons, bunkers, and palaces. petr |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: GUEST,clint keller Date: 07 Apr 03 - 08:12 PM Troll: Are you still beating your wife? Please do not give a "no, I never did" or a simple "yes". Whatever the answer, please give reasons for your decision. clint keller |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: Troll Date: 07 Apr 03 - 10:49 PM No. I am not. Thanks to medication which stabalizes my mental state, I am now able to function more normally in society and with my family than I did previously. Mental illness is not a pretty thing but hiding it away in a closet does not help cure or control it. Now that I have answered your question, I think that I can reasonably expect YOU to answer mine. troll |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: GUEST,clint keller Date: 07 Apr 03 - 11:57 PM Some things can't be answered with a simple yes or know. I can't give you a true answer under those conditions. But you can have some bullshit answers. 1. No, he'll be replaced by someone worse. 2. Yes, it's worth having children killed to keep Saddam from killing them. Take your choice. I don't believe in either of those statements, although either could be true. (I don't believe your answer to my question either.) You're playing games. What I believe is "no, but not the way it's being done," and I also believe that if you dictate the answers to the questions you ask you'll only learn what you know already. But you're only playing word games and I was fool enough to answer you seriously, though obliquely. You have successfully trolled me. clint |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: toadfrog Date: 08 Apr 03 - 12:00 AM The article is not particularly interesting, unless I suppose someone knows all about Hentoff and cares what he thinks. I don't - perhaps that means I'm ignorant. It is not an explanation of what is happening, or a thoughtful appraisal of the consequences. It is one person's emotional response, written up to make a column to entertain somebody's faithful readers. It is really light, fluffy stuff. The emotional response is perfectly valid, and it is (probably) a good thing Hussein will be gone, and (probablyy)someone better will replace him. Although I understand Rumsfeld is going to help pick the team that runs Iraq from now on, and that is scary. But there are a whole lot of serious problems, like the hatred and bloodshed that invasion is likely to generate in the long run, that Hentoff simply ignores in writing that entertaining column, and it is difficult to have a lot of respect for someone who ignores them. |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: CarolC Date: 08 Apr 03 - 12:01 AM Does anyone think that the Iraqi people would be better off in the long run if Saddam Hussein was left in power? I'd say that's going to depend on a lot of things, among them how the US handles the rest of the war, and the post-war period. |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: GUEST,clint keller Date: 08 Apr 03 - 12:28 AM I think I got my "yes & "no" transposed. Doesn't matter, I guess, nonsense question, nonsense answers. ck |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: Little Hawk Date: 08 Apr 03 - 12:29 AM Yeah. It's mere speculation. They may be better off, they may be worse off after Saddam. It depends on a great many variables. But let me ask a question of my own: Does anyone think that the American people would be better off in the long run if George W. Bush was left in power? Please do not give a "no but not the way it's being done" or a simple "yes". Whatever the answer, please give reasons for your decision. No. I think they'd be worse off. I think George W. Bush is a far greater threat to World peace and stability than Saddam could ever have been in his wildest dreams. (Not that I think Bush is consciously trying to do "evil", as he sees it...but I think he's on an absolutely disastrous course, both domestically and internationally. I think that consciously he believes he's doing good. That is usually the case with leaders. They rationalize, and justify their own actions, just the way other people do.) You see, I regard debates about the dangers posed by Saddam like discussing the fact that there's a malfunctioning bilge pump on the Titanic, whilst ignoring the fact that the whole damn ship is about to go down under your feet. Bush's administration is the iceberg, and the whole present World community of nations is the ship. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: CarolC Date: 08 Apr 03 - 12:37 AM Does anyone think that the American people would be better off in the long run if George W. Bush was left in power? I'd say possibly "yes". The longer he remains in power, the worse his neo-Con handlers look to greater and greater numbers of people. I think, in the long run, this is could be a good thing ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: DougR Date: 08 Apr 03 - 02:43 AM Thanks Gregie! Good to know you read my posts! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: Troll Date: 08 Apr 03 - 11:42 AM As a matter of fact Clint, what I told you about myself was the absolute truth and you can check it out by looking at my posts on the subject of mental health. There are also those on the Forum who will back me up. You thought that YOU would play a slick one with your sad attempt at showing my question up as a trap. It wasn't. It was serious as was my answer to your question. So cut the bullshit. The only one who "trolled"you was you. It was not a nonsense question and it is obvious from your non-answer that you haven't really thought about it very much. So you tried a smart-assed response and got pinned to the wall. Tough! Thats what happens to people who let their ego override their brain. LH as far as your question goes, considering what the Democrats are fielding against him in the 2004 election, I think we'd all be a LOT better off leaving George right where he is. troll BTW,clint. If you were a member, I could have PM'd you and not had to make my opinion of your answer public. |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: DougR Date: 08 Apr 03 - 01:17 PM Troll: hear, hear! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: CarolC Date: 08 Apr 03 - 11:50 PM Post-war Afghanistan. Hmmm... Taliban Reviving Structure in Afghanistan |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: Forum Lurker Date: 09 Apr 03 - 12:03 AM Troll-I don't know for certain. It depends on the government that the U.S. sets up to replace him. If it degenerates into warlordism, or becomes a police state under U.S. rule instead of Saddam's, it could quite easily be worse. Warlords kill of each other's populaces faster and more brutally than their own, and an American client state would only bother keeping alive as many people as it needed for the oil, if it wasn't worried about human rights. If the neo-conservatives continue to hold power, that's not as far-fetched as any of us wish it was. Little Hawk-Again, it depends on the alternative. If, as CarolC implies, Bush's administration now paves the way for future successful liberal policies, then it could be a good thing; if it results in the long-term continuation of trickle-down economics, constitutional revision, and disastrous foreign policy, it's no good at all. If Bush's ouster would lead quickly to economic, educational, diplomatic, and campaign finance reform, that would be a good thing. If it would lead to the Democrats taking the blame for a failing economy, resulting in an even stronger conservative backlash, that would be disastrous. |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: Troll Date: 09 Apr 03 - 12:11 AM Thanks for the comeback, Lurker. That's what I was trying for; a little thought instead of the same oldanswers. There are consequences for the Iraqi people no matter which way one thinks and I feel that their welfare sometimes gets forgotten in our zeal to defend our respective positions. My personal feeling is that they will be better off with Saddam Hussein and his regime gone. I find it hard to believe that he could be replaced by someone even worse. troll |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: Little Hawk Date: 09 Apr 03 - 12:42 AM Hmmm. Okay, I see that some of you are still thinking in the "we are the World" sense...that is to say, you're thinking mainly just in terms of what may transpire within the boundaries of the 50 American states in the next few years. I was kind of thinking of the concerns of the whole World... But. Okay. I find it very sad that the only alternative people can think of to the Republicans is the Democrats. Yuck! It's like a choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledummer. But that's the way your USA system works. Whether the Democrats will come up with any viable candidate or platform remains to be seen. It's a godawful choice. I don't envy you at election time. And it's almost that bad in Canada too...but not quite that bad yet. - LH |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: CarolC Date: 09 Apr 03 - 01:12 AM I was thinking globally when I gave my reply, LH. I'm thinking in terms of whether or not those who are pursuing global domination will make/have been making too many enemies, as happens to those who aspire to world domination. At least this bunch has the hubris to do it more openly than the approach taken by the US in the past. This could very well be their undoing. |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: DougR Date: 09 Apr 03 - 02:46 AM I read the article Carol C. What's you point? Has someone claimed that the problems in Afghanstan have been solved? That the Taliban no longer exists? Do you think the Afghans were better off before the Taliban was driven from power or not? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: CarolC Date: 09 Apr 03 - 10:41 AM If you read my response to troll's question, DougR, you'll see that my answer is that it depends on how the US handles the rest of the war and the post war period. The problems that are being experienced in Afghanistan right now could be addressed much more effectively than they are if that country was recieving more than a few hundred million dollars in reconstruction aid from us. We're giving several BILLION dollars in aid to many other countries who have much less need than Afghanistan, but only about 3 million per year to Afghanistan. According to the article I posted, things aren't looking so good in Afghanistan right now. In fact, they seem to be losing ground there, and the rosey scenario and the help we promised them just arent materializing in the amounts that are needed. So my point is that if we handle the post-war period in Iraq as badly as we are handling the post-war period in Afghanistan, the Iraqi people may not be substantially better off after Saddam is removed from power. |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: GUEST,Forum Lurker Date: 09 Apr 03 - 11:40 AM Little Hawk-i agree that the bipolarity of American politics, and indeed most Western thought, is a bad thing. Is there anything that can be done about it? As far as I can tell, the system cannot change short of a violent upheaval that would be far worse than the current system. The lesser of two evils, when those are the only two choices, is indistinguishable from the greatest of all possible goods. |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: GUEST,petr Date: 09 Apr 03 - 12:12 PM I notice no one answered my question, how come no one was outraged by the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia, or for that matter the kicking out Idi AMin out of Uganda by the Tanzanians etc. (after all those were sovereign nations being invaded illegally) |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: GUEST,Forum Lurker Date: 09 Apr 03 - 01:19 PM petr-Because we never heard about it. |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: DougR Date: 10 Apr 03 - 01:57 AM I got your point, Carol C., but I just don't think enough time has elapsed to expect miracles from Afghanstan. I don't pretend to be an expert on the cost of rehabilitation of a nation after a war, so I can't comment on your criticizm about lack of funds. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: CarolC Date: 10 Apr 03 - 02:56 PM Well, miracles are one thing. Loosing ground is another. I don't think it takes an expert to see that if one is losing ground, there is something that needs to be happening that isn't. I also don't think it takes an expert to see that since a big part of the problem is that the police and others whose job it is to keep order aren't getting paid, making sure that money is available to pay these people would go a long way toward solving the problem. |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: toadfrog Date: 10 Apr 03 - 10:21 PM Doug, who says the Afghan problem begins and ends with the Taliban? After our government helped the Islamic Militants chase the Russian-supported government out out, the country was in anarchy, with warlords fighting and people dying. Robbery and rape. Our government apparently did not care. For a while everyone cheered the Taliban, who were bringing order. Rembember that? Then the Taliban also looked like bad guys, and also hostile to America. And we stepped in, and got rid of the Taliban. But hadn't the Taliban at least brought some kind of order? Do we not owe it to the Afghans to put something solid in their place. We are doing next to nothing about the war lords. I call it damnably irresponsible, to take over a foreign country, get what we want and then leave it to lapse into anarchy again. Or at least, it seems to in poor taste to pat oneself on the back about all the wonderful things one has done for Afghanistan, and then go leave it in the lurch. And now we are patting ourselves on the back about how we are bringing democracy to Iraq. Is there any reason to believe this will be different? Just asking. But I think it's a difference in ideology. I think Carol C and I believe on principle that America should favor a better world. I personally think our enlightened self-interest should point that way. And I believe you may basically disagree. Am I wrong? |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: GUEST,pdc Date: 11 Apr 03 - 12:40 AM I'm not sure where to post this, so I'm just going to put it in various threads, as I think everyone should read this. Michael Ignatieff, a Professor of Human Rights at Harvard, wrote an article for New York Times Magazine on January 5th of this year, before the war in Iraq, but when it was pending. It is called The Burden, and it is a thoughtful, intelligent, balanced look at the role of the US in today's world. He discusses the responsibilities that the US has taken upon itself, the cost to the country and its people, all from -- I repeat -- an extremely balanced perspective. It's very long, and it's well worth reading. It's at the following link: Michael Ignatieff -- The Burden |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 11 Apr 03 - 01:32 AM I'm sorry, troll. I only meant to point out that your question was of the same type as the question in the old joke; I had no idea that it would be personally applicable, and I'm sorry for it. Clint Keller |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: DougR Date: 11 Apr 03 - 02:09 AM pdc: "Balance" is in the eye of the beholder. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: GUEST,pdc Date: 11 Apr 03 - 03:52 PM DougR: Please read the article. He both criticizes and defends the US Government all through it, both realizing and regretting what is apparently necessary. I call that balance, even though I don't like to agree with some of what he writes. |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: GUEST,petr Date: 11 Apr 03 - 06:04 PM thanks for that link pdc, Michael Ignatieff sums up my views exactly, and as someone who is a human rights activist, his reluctant support for the Iraq war, summarizes how difficult and risky a moral choice it is. |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: GUEST,pdc Date: 11 Apr 03 - 06:09 PM To Guest petr: Good! Thank you, I'm glad someone else gets it. |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: GUEST Date: 12 Apr 03 - 05:34 PM I get it. |
|
Subject: RE: Nat Hentoff on the war in Iraq From: Deckman Date: 13 Apr 03 - 05:39 PM |
| Share Thread: |
