|
U-Know! Forum » another american beheaded. |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
Lawrence 9547 posts |
Jun 27, 2004, 16:04
|
||
You think anyone here would be supportive of Saddam. Don't forget it was the US who used to give their support to that tyrant. They don't care how brutal a tyrant is, they'll cynically support him for their own ends until he turns on them!
|
|||
bitteryesbitter 370 posts |
Jun 27, 2004, 17:28
|
||
|
dear quexalcote. for starters, i'm not arguing with you so please don't take it that way ok? i respectfully honor everyones right to an opinion. i mean that. i understand your desire to make a point in all of this that, yes, a horrible, despotic, tyrrant was removed from power. (saddam hussein) this is true. however, if that were absolute priority for the u.s invading and occupying iraq, then why saddam hussein, of all despotic tyrrants in the world?? there ARE others just as bad as him, you know? why not invade those others countries? what about iraq carried the most weight to make it top priority? could it be that iraq sits atop the second largest oil reserve in the world? could it be that america wants to get a foothold in the middle-east so that u.s. policy is better 'enforced' in this region? keep in mind that all of the bush cabinet has a vested interest in the oil business. they are ALL corporate suits and ties. their 'eschelon' stands to make a lot of money off of this move, now and in the days to come. all of this aside, the u.n. just voted NOT to extend americas 'exemption from war crimes' in international courts. the u.s responded by saying something to the effect of: "well, this may prevent u.s. participation in peacekeeping missions in the future". makes ya wonder how much the current u.s. gov't is really trying free innocent people who are being tortured and such across the world.
|
|||
|
Lawrence 9547 posts |
Jun 27, 2004, 17:32
|
||
They simply invaded Iraq simply because Saddam betrayed/turned against US government thugs. I stated this before. I think the US probably was even encouraging Saddam to be brutal before he invaded Kuwait.
|
|||
|
Lawrence 9547 posts |
Jun 27, 2004, 17:33
|
||
I should say Saddam turned against the US government thugs who were aiding/abetting him. Don't want to be confusing.
|
|||
|
Quexalcote 228 posts |
Jun 28, 2004, 18:33
|
||
|
I can see how it would sound like simple "for us or against us"-ism... I suppose I do have a bit of frustration with the lack of positive suggestions from the anti-war camp, for example Michael Moore and Howard Zinn and so on... everything I hear from them is very simple-minded nonsense that doesn't offer a bit of a suggestion (short of a time machine to correct past wrongs) as to what might be done. So.... should Hussein have been removed? If you think not, then I have a hard time considering you a serious person. If so, then by what method? I do not doubt that there is a legitimate answer to that question, and a legitimate , responsible anti-war position. I just don't hear it.
|
|||
|
Lawrence 9547 posts |
Jun 28, 2004, 18:45
|
||
|
I think it's more like the US shouldn't have supported Saddam. But then it wasn't until Saddam invaded Kuwait that most people found out how bad he was. Frankly Saddam was awful and it would stink if he got away w/ what he did. The world would be a better place w/out any manipulative, abusive leaders, including Bush.
|
|||
|
Quexalcote 228 posts |
Jun 28, 2004, 19:46
|
||
|
More time-machine thinking. Yes, it is fucked that the US at one time supported Hussein. Since we don't have a time machine to correct this, what do you think should be done?
|
|||
PMM 3155 posts |
Jun 28, 2004, 20:20
|
||
|
I feel like we're always swimming against the tide of history. Unfortunately, the war IS happening. Saddam WAS in power. The real answer I suppose is to stop installing and supporting dictators in the first place. Here's an example of people trying to do the right thing now to prevent similar situations in the future... http://www.soaw.org/new/newswire_detail.php?id=443 But that in itself is simplistic. Imperialism has to be viewed in terms of macro-economics, and cultural aggression. In a society that insists upon competition, conflict is inevitable. More than inevitable. Encouraged and facilitated. When was the last time the US had no enemy to rail against? No excuse to spend uncounted trillions on armaments? I don't want to single out the USA, because although it's the powerhouse of capitalism, it's by no means unique. Dont blame the nation, blame the system. I'm a utopian socialist. I'm proud to be that, and I believe that until we abolish nation states and competitive cultural and economic ethoses (if that's the correct plural) then such conflicts will continue. Unfortunately, how I get from here to where I want to be... *scratches head and stares at ceiling The dice are loaded. Western Democracy will never generate significant change. Yet I see no sign of any mass movement that could change things. Perhaps when the oil runs out, things will have to change, but I suspect that the conflict over the last supplies may yet bring civilisation as we know it to an end. Frederick Engels described the choice as between socialism and barbarism. I think this is still as true today.
|
|||
|
Lawrence 9547 posts |
Jun 28, 2004, 21:35
|
||
Well there was nothing we could do was there? Exactly what is the purpose for that question anyways? Maybe how to prevent the US government from covertly supporting tyranny? Is that what you mean?
|
|||
|
Quexalcote 228 posts |
Jun 28, 2004, 21:37
|
||
|
I would count myself as a utopian socialist as well, and the impediments to that socialist utopia that you point out are true. It ain't coming in either of our lifetimes, and meanwhile there are people like Saddam who are enemies of humanity in the fullest sense of that phrase. GW may be (actually, he is) a lot of terrible things, but a Hitler or Hussein he is not. The US is undoubtedly going to make a lot of mistakes in Iraq, and it's a shame that our entire body of policy in that area isn't being completely overhauled, but I can't make the leap from that to the idea that past mistakes leave us helpless to do anything about the present situation.
|
| Pages: 14 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
