All's Fair

Posted by: Laura

All's Fair - 25/03/2003 17:05

Hasn't Bush ever heard the old saying that all's fair in love and war? Am I the only one getting tired of him whining because Iraq isn't following the proper rules of engagement. I mean c'mon, it's a fricking war.

I haven't been following the threads on the war closely nor have I been watching much of the coverage but what little I have seen he is always complaining.

I'm not for the war and just find it sad that the world has to have one going on somewhere at all times. Civilians will always get killed and there will always be deaths by friendly fire, that is why war is messy and should be avoided.

I'm done ranting now
Posted by: JrFaust

Re: All's Fair - 25/03/2003 17:17

Yeah I find it sort-of weird that they have "rules" for engaging in war. And I too wish they'd stop whining about the way that Iraq is fighting, seriously we did the same crap to the english during the revolutionary war.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: All's Fair - 25/03/2003 17:43

Yeah but to be fair, they were taxing our tea.
Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

Re: All's Fair - 25/03/2003 19:47

He's only complaining to the people that say the US is using unfair tactics. I agree that some tactics like "scorched earth" (burning oil wells) is "fair" but why do people blast the US for an accident (say a bomb that went a stray) but don't seem too upset over Iraq putting civilians in a known tagetted building for the simple reason that it'd make a good TV moment the following day when the smoke cleared?
Posted by: genixia

Re: All's Fair - 25/03/2003 20:40

Yeah, I'm sick of it. Firstly, we all know that Iraq plays dirty.

But the reason that I'm sick of it is that the current US Administration has basically screwed US credibility with regards to the Geneva Convention. They've gone out of their way to find a *cough* legal method of avoiding it altogether when it comes to people detained in Afghanistan. And also to ensure that the detainees cannot get any legal representation within the US legal system either.

Basically, as far as I'm concerned, the Afghan detainee situation boils down to armed abduction and illegal detention. Sure, if we believe everything that we're told, they aren't being tortured, they are being well looked after and it's generating good intel. But it's no better than North Korea abducting the few dozen Japanese a couple of decades ago.

I have a hard problem listening to the US Government whine about other nations who do not respect international law, and touting how great their record is whilst this situation persists. The hypocrisy is astounding. I don't really care whether they give them legal recourse under US law or under the terms of the Geneva Convention, but they should have some.
Posted by: andy

Re: All's Fair - 26/03/2003 02:48

Basically, as far as I'm concerned, the Afghan detainee situation boils down to armed abduction and illegal detention.

Well said. I'm quite sure at least some of the people they have abducted are "bad" people. If they are so convinced that they are all bad people then take them to the US and try them.
Posted by: bonzi

Re: All's Fair - 26/03/2003 04:07

Basically, as far as I'm concerned, the Afghan detainee situation boils down to armed abduction and illegal detention. Sure, if we believe everything that we're told, they aren't being tortured, they are being well looked after and it's generating good intel. But it's no better than North Korea abducting the few dozen Japanese a couple of decades ago.

Exactly. And it gives very ugly black eye to the public image of intervention that most of the world (myself included) considered justified.

But current administration is generally not very fond of international treaties, is it?
Posted by: David

Re: All's Fair - 26/03/2003 07:24

> they were taxing our tea.

Actually, they (we?) weren't taxing the tea - but that was precisely the problem.

http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/E/teaparty/bostonxx.htm
Posted by: frog51

Re: All's Fair - 26/03/2003 08:22

I don't even like tea.

But I really like chocolate, so I guess I would have had issues with either Cortez or Montezuma
Posted by: bonzi

Re: All's Fair - 26/03/2003 08:37

Hm, so American view on free trade was similar then as it is now - strictly lip service
Posted by: tonyc

Re: All's Fair - 26/03/2003 09:47

Hm, so American view on free trade was similar then as it is now - strictly lip service
You know, this kind of shit is really starting to piss me off. So many on this BBS act like the U.S. is the first country to impose tariffs and to work trade relationships in such a way that's beneficial for our own people, and not always for others. I don't pretend to be an economist or understand any of the economic factors involved, but I do know that every country on this planet works its trade policies for its own benefit. How is the United States any different?
Posted by: bonzi

Re: All's Fair - 26/03/2003 10:42

US is not particularly protectionist (compared to world average). The problem is double standards. For example:
  • FDA or DoA regulates what is considered food in US and what is not. So, Scottish haggis (sp?) is not considered suitable for human consumption, as are not some kinds of Italian mortadella, German saugages, some cheeses etc. Nobody blames US for that. However, when EU standards put lower limits on hormones and antibiotics in meat (based on well documented studies showing them harmfull, especially for children), US cries 'protectionism!' and uses tame WTO 'arbitrators' to push their meat down European's throat. Now they are trying the same with genetically modified food; more precisely, they are trying to forbid labeling GM food in Europe, calling it protectionism. (I personally think that furor over GM food is blown out of proportion, but that's besides the point.)
  • US and EU are constantly bickering over subsidies (mostly indirect) for commercial aircraft manufacturers (Airbus and Boeing). Several years ago an agreement was signed about that, and US side is unable to show that EU is in breach of it. When European countries buy military aircraft, it is normal that US companies compete without discrimination (and so recently Poland has chosen F-16 over European choice of JAS39 Grippen, Rafale and Eurofighter). But, when USAF suddenly decides it needs 50 or so new tankers, EADS/Airbus is told they need not apply with A330 - that is reserved for Boeing's surplus 767s and, haeven forbid, it is not indirect subsidy. Similarly in competition for various elint and sigint aircraft (now likely to be consolidated in a single platform) - British need not apply with their Nimrod variants...
  • Steel story is rehashed too many times to repeat it again...
Posted by: tonyc

Re: All's Fair - 26/03/2003 11:02

The problem is double standards.
You seem infinitely more informed than me on these issues, so I can't argue with you. I just find it hard to believe that other countries aren't also applying standards when it's convenient for them, and trying to get whatever advantage they can. I'm not saying it's honorable, or that multiple wrongs make a right... But I'm reasonably confident that if I did enough research, I could find instances where others are using the same negotiating tactics.
Posted by: bonzi

Re: All's Fair - 26/03/2003 11:18

You might be right. It's probably simply that US is the biggest bully in the schoolyard... There are examples of similar application of double standards by EU countries, receiving end being countries 'in transition' (and probably others).
Posted by: lopan

Re: All's Fair - 26/03/2003 11:46

I'm in general totally sick of the frickin anti US sentiments expressed on this board. You have iraq building really nasty weapons, killing it's own people in very disgusting ways, treating pows like [censored], and the US is a bad bad country... oh.. frickin boo hoo, as far as I'm concerned it's an excessivly warped way of seeing things. Yeah the US might not have the best foreign policy but it's by far not the worst, dunno maybe we have to pay our people to explode in shopping malls or gas our own people to be considered a better place...
Posted by: jaharkes

Re: All's Fair - 26/03/2003 12:48

Yeah the US might not have the best foreign policy but it's by far not the worst, dunno maybe we have to pay our people to explode in shopping malls or gas our own people to be considered a better place...

But 'gassing your own people' wouldn't be considered 'foreign policy', would it?
Posted by: lopan

Re: All's Fair - 26/03/2003 12:51

I think you get the gist....
Posted by: tonyc

Re: All's Fair - 26/03/2003 13:06

You might be right. It's probably simply that US is the biggest bully in the schoolyard...
That's where I think a lot of this comes from around here. Because the United States has been the leader for so long, everyone wants to point to every mistake, just so our heads don't get too big. You know what? Our heads aren't that big. We realize our mistakes. We realize our country isn't perfect. But the last thing we need is to be reminded of that fact, especially during a time when we're putting a lot of our reputation and stature as a world leader on the line.
Posted by: tonyc

Re: All's Fair - 26/03/2003 13:06

Yeah, I'm sick of it too. There are certainly legitimate gripes you can throw at the United States, and now that the U.S. is in a precarious position with the war, everyone seems to be piling on even more than usual.
Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

Re: All's Fair - 26/03/2003 13:09

That's his point. If the US didn't do anything about it, then the same people would be complaining that we just stood by and watched. I remember just as much opposition to the US and NATO getting involved in Kosovo. How many mass graves were Russia and Europe going to ignore before they finally decided to do something about it? Or more likely, how many 1,000's of people would need to be butchered there before those same people telling us not to get involved reemed us for doing nothing? Kinda reminds me of how the same people that said we should have gotten Iraq out of Kuwait with sanctions (huh?) the complained that the sanctions were causing the Iraqi babies to starve.

I think you're right, the US is simply the biggest kid on the block.

How many other countries would it take to total the amount of money the US spends whenever a national disaster hits some nation? How many foreign people help the US when earthquakes hit LA or our rivers flood? When has Russia offered rescue divers to save American sailors? (Hint, the US offered to help raise the sunken Russian sub even after Russia falsely accused the US of causing it to sink.) Why was the US more of a factor in peace in Ireland than any mainland European country?

Sure we mess up from time to time. The world is an unpredictable place and we're living in a post cold-war era that everyone is trying to figure out. There are a lot of things that our government did that didn't pan out or backfired but those couldn't have been predicted. Sometimes those costs are still worth it - as in the case of Afghanistan.
Posted by: tonyc

Re: All's Fair - 26/03/2003 13:11

But 'gassing your own people' wouldn't be considered 'foreign policy', would it?
It's certainly a curious domestic agenda though, ain't it.
Posted by: tonyc

Re: All's Fair - 26/03/2003 13:19

Very well said.
Sure we mess up from time to time.
Yes, we do. And instead of trying to chip in and help, many nations would rather watch us strike out own, and if we happen to succeed, jump on board, saying that they were with us all the time. (Chirac, I'm looking in your direction, mister "Oh, eef ve find ze chemical veppons, that's a different story.") Talk about a double standard. I understand that war is the last option, and I do think the U.S. should have tried harder to arrive at a concensus, but when you won't even negotiate anything that involves Iraq to be accountable, that's unacceptable.
. There are a lot of things that our government did that didn't pan out or backfired but those couldn't have been predicted. Sometimes those costs are still worth it - as in the case of Afghanistan.
Don't pronounce our efforts in Afghanistan dead just yet... We just went in there a year ago. There's still time for the new Afghan government to get the rest of the country under control, especially with our help. We're still working that angle with our people, too.
Posted by: andy

Re: All's Fair - 26/03/2003 13:24

I'm in general totally sick of the frickin anti US sentiments expressed on this board.

I think the problem is that the rest of the world is a bit fed up with constantly being told what a wonderful place the US is and having US corporate culture rammed down their throats.

Don't get me wrong, I like the US. I'm off to the US on holiday for 3 weeks later this year. Most of the Americans I have personally met, talk to or chatted to on this board are excellent people. I work in an American company and speak to several US collegues a day.

That is not the image that most people around the world see most of the time though. The image that most people see most of the time comes across as a very arogant "we're better at everything than you" approach.

With a MacDonalds, Starbucks, Borders etc on every corner people feel like they are being forced further and further towards an American culture whether they like it or not.

Until a few more Americans realise that you often come off as arogant a lot of the time things, aren't going to change, a large proportion of the world is going to hate you. Sorry.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: All's Fair - 26/03/2003 13:27

With a MacDonalds, Starbucks, Borders etc on every corner people feel like they are being forced further and further towards an American culture whether they like it or not.
Hell, I think most Americans feel the same way, especially if you're going to use those examples.
Posted by: tonyc

Re: All's Fair - 26/03/2003 13:27

With a MacDonalds, Starbucks, Borders etc on every corner people feel like they are being forced further and further towards an American culture whether they like it or not.
I guess people are being forced to eat at McDonalds, drink coffee at Starbucks, and buy books at Borders? Seems to me if people were so fed up with those things, they wouldn't spend their hard earned pounds, francs, and guilders there... right?

Funny, I don't ever hear Americans complaining that Chinese culture is being shoved down our throats because there's a Chinese restaurant in every shopping center...
Posted by: andy

Re: All's Fair - 26/03/2003 13:29

Hell, I think most Americans feel the same way, especially if you're going to use those examples.

Unfortunately most of the world probably thing that most Americans spend all their time in McDs and Starbucks....

Shall we blame it all on Hollywood
Posted by: tonyc

Re: All's Fair - 26/03/2003 13:30

Shall we blame it all on Hollywood
Now you're talking!
Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

Re: All's Fair - 26/03/2003 13:31

Hey, I'm just as sickened by the corporate culture of McDonald's and Nike, but that has nothing to do with this (although, in a small way I do think that Rock&Roll and McDonalds helped the Soviet Union collapse). Our businesses aren't state owned or run .

Tony, by Afghanistan, I was refering to how we helped the very same people we ended up fighting by giving them weapons to shoot at the Soviets some 20 years earlier. In hindsight, I still think it was worth it.
Posted by: blitz

Re: All's Fair - 26/03/2003 13:33

and now that the U.S. is in a precarious position with the war

What precarious position are you referring to?
Posted by: andy

Re: All's Fair - 26/03/2003 13:34

Funny, I don't ever hear Americans complaining that Chinese culture is being shoved down our throats because there's a Chinese restaurant in every shopping center...

I think that is probably because their isn't a Chinese book shop, a Chinese burger restaurant, a Chinese pizza palour, a Chinese coffee shop and a cinema showing 95% Chinese films in every shopping centre...

...but make that three of each of the book shop, burger place, pizza place and coffee shop as they tend to hunt in packs

P.S. What is the point of having three Starbucks stores within several hundred metres of each other ?
Posted by: tonyc

Re: All's Fair - 26/03/2003 13:36

Tony, by Afghanistan, I was refering to how we helped the very same people we ended up fighting by giving them weapons to shoot at the Soviets some 20 years earlier. In hindsight, I still think it was worth it.
Ah. Yes. That. I tend to agree... At the time, it made sense. How were we to know in the 1980's what 2001 was going to look like? We certainly weren't very close in 1968.
Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

Re: All's Fair - 26/03/2003 13:37

In reply to:

Until a few more Americans realise that you often come off as arogant a lot of the time things, aren't going to change, a large proportion of the world is going to hate you. Sorry.




That makes sense. Even if it has little or no founding. That's pretty much why many American's don't care for France (and this goes WAY back to post-WWII). Another reason being that we have a strong loyalty to Britan and after seeing how the French had the gaul to build castles in England with only "Mind your own business" as an excuse...
Posted by: tonyc

Re: All's Fair - 26/03/2003 13:39

P.S. What is the point of having three Starbucks stores within several hundred metres of each other ?
As Bitt casually alluded to, even Americans have no idea how to answer that one.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: All's Fair - 26/03/2003 13:39

It's not being forced down their throats. McD's and Starbucks wouldn't be over there unless they were making money, and they wouldn't be making money if people weren't going there. So do these people take a sip of Starbucks and then say, "Damn you America! This coffee is so good I can't stop myself from drinking it!"

I think it has more to do with jealousy.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: All's Fair - 26/03/2003 13:40

I guess people are being forced to eat at McDonalds, drink coffee at Starbucks, and buy books at Borders? Seems to me if people were so fed up with those things, they wouldn't spend their hard earned pounds, francs, and guilders there... right?
If I want to buy coffee or books, I pretty much do have to go to those places, as they've driven almost everyone else out of business.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: All's Fair - 26/03/2003 13:43

I pretty much do have to go to those places, as they've driven almost everyone else out of business.


Well if everyone (or most) felt the same way, then McDonald's, Starbucks, and Borders would be driven out of business.
Posted by: tonyc

Re: All's Fair - 26/03/2003 13:43

What precarious position are you referring to?
I'm not talking about precarious in a military sense. I mean in a political sense. We've alienated ourselves from the U.N... We've made enemies with France (oooh la la!)... et cetera. We (along with the good British blokes across the pond, our Aussie friends down under, and, curiously, our new Polish brethren) are the ones fighting the war while everyone else hedges their bets with reactions ranging from complete condemnation, to unofficial acknowledgements that we're doing the right thing, but "sssh! don't tell anyone" because it's not popular to agree with ANYTHING the U.S. does.
Posted by: tonyc

Re: All's Fair - 26/03/2003 13:45

If I want to buy coffee or books, I pretty much do have to go to those places, as they've driven almost everyone else out of business.
Wow. I can't comment on your situation, but there are a million other places I can go around here for those items.
Posted by: Anonymous

Re: All's Fair - 26/03/2003 13:46

Actually, they (we?) weren't taxing the tea - but that was precisely the problem.


I stand corrected.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: All's Fair - 26/03/2003 13:48

There are certainly certain areas of the country (I don't know where Exton is, eastern PA?) that have a stronger local-owned feel to them. Here is not one, unfortunately.
Posted by: tonyc

Re: All's Fair - 26/03/2003 13:52

Exton is about 20-30 minutes west of Philadelphia. There are enough Borders' around, but there are also plenty of Barnes and Nobles. B&N is another pseudo-monopoly, so, if you like, you can also go to smaller chains like Gene's Books, or mom&pop places, most of which are near universities. Coffee you can get anywhere... Convenience stores, diners... For a true "coffee shop" feel, there's also plenty of those left. I would imagine Starbucks is taking away from their business, but, so far at least, they haven't sank too many of them.
Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

Re: All's Fair - 26/03/2003 13:55

Anyone else find it funny that the film "You've Got Mail" was about a small little book shop that was being forced out of business by a large bookstore chain when the movie was sponsored by AOL (who put many local ISP's out of business) and Starbucks (where 1/2 the movie seemed to take place)?

This same hatred for Western "culture" is the main reason that we are and will always be the target of terrorism. It has nothing to do with our troops being on holy land or our support for Israel. Every terror suspect or supporter that I've heard make a statement has expressed this point. They will use topics like Israel and troops in Saudi Arabia to gather support, but their fundamental complaint is our life style. So before anyone gets too bend out of shape by our films and our fast food establishments - consider what that hatred might lead to.

Maybe I'm spoiled living in the suburbs, but I've got plenty of choice when it comes to coffee shops (don't diners sell coffee anymore?) or book stores. To be honest, how many people in the US were drinking cafe late's every morning before Starbucks came to your town? I think they've actually created a market.

It's too bad that people that hate it so much simply don't ignore it. Hate Hollywood films? Go to your local art theater and view an indie or foreign film. Hate Nike? Buy another shoe. Hate the way our women dress? Don't apply for citizenship here no matter how tempting our Welfare program is (or simply stay home and don't watch MTV if you do.)

I hate mainstream music - that's why I bought my empeg!
Posted by: robricc

Re: All's Fair - 26/03/2003 13:58

If I want to buy coffee or books, I pretty much do have to go to those places, as they've driven almost everyone else out of business.
That's not true. I love coffee. I drink coffee black. Since I don't load it up with sugar and cream, I can really taste the coffee. I find that Starbucks practically burns their coffee and should probably change their name to Charbucks. Due to this, if I want some coffee, starbucks is my last choice. I never have a problem finding non-Starbucks coffee.

I also buy books at Amazon.

I know this is a thread about war, but I just wanted to say that not all coffee drinkers like Starbucks. I think this might be the first political thread I've ever replied to actually.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: All's Fair - 26/03/2003 14:14

I'll have to admit that I don't drink coffee, and think that Borders (and, to a lesser extent, B&N) are actually a good thing, mostly (as they have a lot of books and their clerks are often quite knowledgeable, unlike what You've Got Mail implied), so I'm talking out of my ass somewhat.

I am quote pissed off about music shops, though. It's almost impossible anymore to find someone who knows jack about music. I still lust after stores like the one found in High Fidelity, but they are few and far between these days (although I do frequent a few of them).

I guess my problem has more to do with the dumbing-down and homogenizing of Americans. So just ignore me. (As if you weren't already.)
Posted by: Ezekiel

Re: All's Fair - 26/03/2003 14:15

I think the folks at the Black Bear Co. agree with you.

Their 'Mr. Charbucks' tastes pretty close. They're being sued by the evil empire for this name.

-Zeke
Posted by: canuckInOR

Re: All's Fair - 26/03/2003 22:31

Until a few more Americans realise that you often come off as arogant a lot of the time things, aren't going to change, a large proportion of the world is going to hate you. Sorry.
That makes sense. Even if it has little or no founding.
Unfortunately, it *does* have founding. I've had this conversation before, so I've had a long, long time to think about this. I'm a non- (okay, half) American, living in the US for the last year and a half -- take that as you will.

Where do foreigners (i.e. non-Americans living outside the US) get their impressions of the US? In rough order of least to most likely, here's what I've seen:

a) travel to the US,
b) Americans travelling to *their* country,
c) American media,
d) American foreign policy.

(a) is probably the least likely way for people to develop a negative attitude towards Americans. Yeah, there's a lot of tourism, but if people are travelling to the US, then they're likely already above the stereotypes that make people hate Americans, not to mention that they'll have had the opportunity to mingle with the regular populace. Similarly, the percentage of people involved in (a) is miniscule compared to the number of people who are unable to do things like that.

The next option for learning about America is (b), and... well... the US doesn't have the most steller reputation there. American tourists are often (not always) seen as obnoxious, un-cultured, un-educated boobs. Though I haven't the personal experience, all of my (Canadian) friends that have extensive travel experience have caught Americans travelling incognito with Canadian flags on their backpacks, because they don't want to be known as American. The "obnoxious" and "un-cultured" bits likely stem from the people that go out and paint the town red. Even if you drop the "obnoxious" and "un-cultured" bits, you still have the un-educated to think about. The economics of the US gives their population of great unwashed masses the ability to travel the world, but the state of education about foreign lands is apalling -- it shines through like water in a urinal (to borrow a line from Shakespeare). The lack of knowledge about things outside the US is often combined with an expectation that things change to be more American-centric. To a non-American, this expectation of change to suit your ideas is arrogant. Fortunately, the US also has representatives like jimhogan travelling the world.

The next most common way for people to learn about Americans is (c). The US exports their media all over the world, and it's all pro-US, often to the point of being nauseating. This is part of the culture ingrained into the American people, so I doubt many even recognize they do it. It's the whole patriotism thing -- "we're the best" is the mantra, and it's repeated so often that it's arrogant, and offensive. Yes, America is damn good, but so are Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Japan, the UK, and a whole host of other countries.

Then there is film and television, filled with... crap. To make films more palatable for the American audience, studios are more than willing to modify history so that Americans have all the good bits. For example, in U-571, why, exactly, was it necessary to fictionalize the story so that it was the Americans that captured the Enigma machine, instead of the British? To an American, it's a good story. To a non-American, it's insulting, and yet another feather in the cap of arrogance worn by the US.

Which brings us to (d), the most likely way for people to form an opinion about Americans -- it's what affects them the most. Someone else mentioned "yeah, the US government makes mistakes". They also said they learn from it. I don't think that's the case. I think the government makes mistakes, but they rarely learn from it at all. The current administration sure didn't seem to, anyway. A lot of foreign policy *is* as bullying. Furthermore, it's meddling in places where the US has no business in meddling -- the sovereign affairs of other nations or regions -- Isreal/Palestine, Chile, Vietnam, Panama, Bangladesh, etc. Yes, some of it is with good intentions, but often it's only to protect the interests of American government and corporations, paying the merest of lip service to the humanitarian reasons the intervention is supposedly for. For instance, the democratically president-elect of Chile was bumped off because a) he had socialist leanings, and b) he wanted to improve his nation economically by improving the copper mining industry to reduce dependance on the US. The end result was Pinochet. Of course, I don't need to remind you that American meddling brought about both Saddam *and* Osama. Yes, the US does good things, but it has such a huge history of double dealings and un-fulfilled obligations that it has committed to, that American foreign policy is "difficult" to trust, and the manner it's carried out in (both by current and some past administrations) is nothing short of arrogant. The American people have built up the President into such an icon that to people outside the US, the President *is* America. Sometimes he makes a good representative, but at the moment, he's just an embaressment.

Is it fair that so much of that falls on the shoulders of the American populace? No. Is it right that people have stereotyped Americans? No. But there *is* a reason stereotypes exist, and when three out of the four methods of learning about real Americans is less than exemplary towards Americans in general, they *aren't* going away quick.

My 2 cents.

Posted by: Daria

Re: All's Fair - 26/03/2003 23:10

Can I just sum it up as "we suck"?

I'm not being sarcastic. I mean that.
Posted by: muzza

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 04:03

Shall we blame it all on Hollywood

I think it's a conspiracy with Hollywood to generate more movie themes. I'm waiting for the action movie where a small group of soldiers is sent on a mission and discovers a WMD and a renegade in the group is determined to set it off which would provoke an all out nuke war but is overcome by his comrades at the last moment and he remembers his family, the US flag, apple pie and relents and the whole thing is covered up.
Posted by: muzza

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 04:13

Well if everyone (or most) felt the same way, then McDonald's, Starbucks, and Borders would be driven out of business.


starbuck and mcdonalds can afford to make huge losses for a long time in one area in by dropping their prices rediculously low for an extended period. the local shops cant compete with that and are forced to close and the chain stores rocket their prices up.
Consumers vote with their wallet most of the time
Posted by: peter

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 04:29

I think that is probably because there isn't a Chinese book shop, a Chinese burger restaurant, a Chinese pizza palour, a Chinese coffee shop and a cinema showing 95% Chinese films in every shopping centre...
Apparently there's a shopping centre like that in North London somewhere... I haven't been there, but I'm told it rules...

Peter
Posted by: muzza

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 04:30

Can I just sum it up as "we suck"?


no. I have a friend who is married to an American, and she's a lovely person. The same is probably true for 90% of Americans. The same is probably true for 90% of most people in the world. Decent, intelligent, thinking people.
The problem seems to be the Adminstration and its self interest and short sigtedness. Why wouldn't Bush sign the Kyota Protocol? To protect America's interests. Too bad if those interest may be different in ten years.
Americans appear to be 'too close' to it's own affairs to really see what the rest of the world does. (same with any country, I'll wager). It's like watching a kid being naughty in a shop and thinking "i'll never let my child get away with that". But given the same circumstance, your own child may behave the same way and you don't do anything.

I do wonder if the US comments about the Iraqi Soldiers not playing fair were more that they weren't reacting in ways they had trained for and their forces were being humiliated.
Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 05:51

In reply to:

The same is probably true for 90% of Americans. The same is probably true for 90% of most people in the world.




Your post is what I meant by "no founding". I live near Detroit, home of the US auto industry. We have "boobs" from the UK, Germany and Japan here all the time. They are often cocky, arrogant dip-sh1ts. But that in no way effects my opinion of the rest of the people from their countries. So while it is a "cause" for an opinion, it not a foundation for a fact.

Think about this: Most American's in Europe are snobby rich kids or overpaid business people. I'm by no means living in poverty but do you think I could afford to "vacation in Europe"? A plane ticket would cost more than my first car. So that's how I look at the people visiting Detroit - they are just overpaid jerks (I'm exaggerating here - I have met a lot of nice people from abroad) who were given a company credit card paid for by BMW. And if I did travel to Europe, I probably WOULD wear a Canadian flag out of fear - not because I was embarrissed. Canada has the luxury of having a big, protective brother living next door. They can just sit there and work on their own affairs knowning that they'll never be threatened (admittedly, more than 1/2 the reason they aren't threatened is because they don't get involved in international affairs.) So if I wear a Canadian flag, I'm less likely to have bad things happen to me.

BTW: I wouldn't call advancing 200 miles into Iraq with only 20 - 30 loses out of 250,000 troops being "humiliated". The US is starting to whine about that stuff, but I think they are just sick of being asked stupid questions like "how many babies are YOU going to kill today" when they are going out of their way to avoid such things and are spending millions of dollars per munition rather than a few thousand on a bomb to ensure it doesn't happen. So even though they are the only side involved in this counflict that would never hurt a civilian unless it was accidental, many news outlets are failing to report this.
Posted by: davec

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 06:57

I drink coffee black. Since I don't load it up with sugar and cream, I can really taste the coffee. I find that Starbucks practically burns their coffee and should probably change their name to Charbucks

I'll second that!!! I switched to roasting my own green coffee beans where I am in control of my own coffee... Burning beans is a way to cover up poor quality coffee, remember the Kona bean scandal a few years ago. Charbucks was the biggest buyer of the non-Kona Kona beans... And you don't roast island grown coffees to a dark roast, it kills the qualities of that varietal...

To be sort of on topic... did the UN have hospitals and schools on their list of sites to look for clues to chem/bio/wmd programs? Because that's where we're starting to find evidence that the stuff really exsists...
Posted by: blitz

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 07:27

he's just an embaressment

HE'S just an embaRRAssment?
Posted by: JeffS

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 07:32

So just ignore me.

I, for one, quite agree with you about the bookstores. I like borders and buy a lot of books there. I don't drink coffee, so Starbucks isn't really an issue, and I avoid McDonald’s if at all possible (though admittedly I do crave their fries sometimes).

As for music stores, I’ve all but given up when it comes to new music. I’m still checking out a bunch of those older albums we listed in the “desert island” thread, but as far as new stuff I’ve only bought two albums released in the last two years, both of which are from bands I’ve long respected and know well. My Empeg also exacerbates this problem of finding new music, but that’s a whole other thread. In the end, I buy all of my music online and this suits me just fine.

Moving on to the rest of the discussion, as for this whole “The U.S. is jamming its culture down our throats” thing, let me try to understand it a bit. We do practice, at lest to some extent, economic Darwinism in this country. The weak die, sometimes even if the product/ service being offered is superior to everything else because they aren’t the “fittest” for the market (can anyone think of a good example?). How this relates to the economics of other countries I’ll have to admit ignorance, but I’d at least gather that this “survival of the fittest” capitalism isn’t limited to this country. Still, this thread has identified some of the big boys from the U.S., and they are resented because of their successfulness. Is this because this sort of market dominance wouldn’t be tolerated from European companies? Are there rules of some sort protecting against the strong growing too strong? If so, I suppose the resentment is against the U.S. allowing these companies to become so large. If not, then I can’t see why the success of these companies has anything to do with the U.S. itself.

As has been stated before, if people don’t like these companies or their products, no one is forcing their patronage. That the majority of the populace seems to frequent these places (or at least enough to keep them successful) is an indication that whatever resentment there is, it isn’t enough to override the “need” to possess whatever it is can be obtained from these places. It is enough, however, to dislike the U.S. for “forcing” this need upon them.
Posted by: genixia

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 07:48

And if I did travel to Europe, I probably WOULD wear a Canadian flag out of fear - not because I was embarrissed. Canada has the luxury of having a big, protective brother living next door. They can just sit there and work on their own affairs knowning that they'll never be threatened (admittedly, more than 1/2 the reason they aren't threatened is because they don't get involved in international affairs.) So if I wear a Canadian flag, I'm less likely to have bad things happen to me.


Regardless of motive, false flag operations are cowardly and liable to get you shot as a spy.

Well, in war anyway. But I can't see how you are helping the situation at all? If all the intelligent, thoughtful and worldly US citizens pretend to be Canadian when abroad, leaving only the loud, arrogant and ignorant US citizens to fly the US flag abroad, just where in the World would people get the misconceived idea that USAians are loud, arrogrant and ignorant?!

How can you plead allegiance to your flag one week, and hide behind another the next? Don't actions speak louder than words? How does lying to everyone you meet abroad sit with true US values of honesty and respect? And just how is that fair to your northern neighbors?
Posted by: David

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 08:01

> How can you plead allegiance to your flag

I've always wondered - do they really put flags in the corners of every elementary school classroom and get the kids to pledge allegiance each morning, or is it just on TV?

This is so completely opposite to British (ok, English) attitudes, that it seems bizarre. What happens if a kid refuses to do it?
Posted by: genixia

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 08:09

http://www.kare11.com/news/news-article.asp?NEWS_ID=44083

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 08:12

For example, in U-571, why, exactly, was it necessary to fictionalize the story so that it was the Americans that captured the Enigma machine, instead of the British? To an American, it's a good story. To a non-American, it's insulting, and yet another feather in the cap of arrogance worn by the US.
I know I'm going off on another tangent, but I really like movies, so I thought I'd comment on this one.

I think it's insulting, or at least embarrasing, to Americans that that plot point was changed. At least to those Americans who can pick out the countries involved on a map, which is not many, unfortunately. Not that the rest of the plot had much resemblance to what really happened.

There's been a lot of talk that Hollywood sucks. In my mind, this is sort of a microcosm of the whole ``the US sucks'' argument. Hollywood makes a lot of putrid, stultifying shit. But it also does manage to make some good stuff. Sure, there are a lot of good movies that are made in Britain or Spain or Italy or Australia or New Zealand. But they make crap movies, too.

I guess my point is that if you pick through the crud, there are a lot of fine examples still there. And that goes for US citizens as well as for Hollywood movies.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 08:25

I've always wondered - do they really put flags in the corners of every elementary school classroom and get the kids to pledge allegiance each morning, or is it just on TV?
While I don't ever remember reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in school (well, maybe once or twice at an assembly or something -- certainly not every morning or once a week), it doesn't sound like the sort of thing that would be remarkably uncommon, either. (Edit: I'm in Raleigh, NC, which, along with Wake County in general, while within the Bible Belt, is probably an island of non-Bible-Belt-ness, despite the fact that the Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary is in Wake Forest. Also, I went to public school from 1978-1991, if my math is correct.)

While we may be pledging allegiance to something that 23% of Americans don't believe in, at least we're not pledging allegiance to GWB.
Posted by: davec

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 09:34

I've always wondered - do they really put flags in the corners of every elementary school classroom and get the kids to pledge allegiance each morning, or is it just on TV?

I grew up and went through the public school system in Tempe. AZ. We said the Pledge every morning for 12 years (1974-1986) I don't know if it's still done today. I don't recall anyone ever refusing to do it.
Posted by: JBjorgen

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 09:38

In elementary school (1983-1989) , we did flag pledges every morning. We no longer did them in homeroom in Jr. High and High School.
Posted by: robricc

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 09:49

In middle school we pretty-much never did the pledge. When I got to high school we had "morning announcements" over the PA system which included the pledge every morning. Class of 1999 by the way.
Posted by: blitz

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 09:56

In elementary school (1983-1989) , we did flag pledges every morning. We no longer did them in homeroom in Jr. High and High School.

We recited the pledge every day in elementary school. Now the strange thing to me is we said it so much it had no meaning. Additionally, we started at such a young age with perhaps limited vocabulary it was really like this:

iplegalegence tothuflag ofthe United States of America [pause] andtotherepublic forwhichitstands one nation undergod ...

I don't know if anyone else remembers it like this or not.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 09:58

the strange thing to me is we said it so much it had no meaning
Brainwashing technique #1.

I don't think that anyone intended it that way, but it is a nice side effect.
Posted by: davec

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 09:59

I don't know if anyone else remembers it like this or not.

Pretty much. How many people can recite it alone, out loud and correctly? Not a lot can when they try...
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 10:07

I can. (Just did, quietly, so as not to confuse my cell^H^H^H^Hcubicle-mate.)

I had to think about it a little, but I got throught it the first time. I wonder if this is because it wasn't drummed into my head as a collection of phonemes.
Posted by: drakino

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 10:32

P.S. What is the point of having three Starbucks stores within several hundred metres of each other ?

The first two stores in Colorado Springs were placed 2 blocks from each other. The first one is on 134 N. Tejon, the second one is 7 S. Tejon. Both placed right near very successful local coffee shops. It actually generated quite a bit of local news, and for a while the Starbucks sat empty. But with the influx of more and more outsiders, the local coffee shops never bothered to move outside downtown, opening up the rest of the city to be claimed by Starbucks. The local shops are still around downtown though, and most offer full meals that make the visit well worth it.

Until a few weeks ago, I had never had anything from Starbucks. Now I'm hooked on their carmel apple cider drink.
Posted by: bonzi

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 11:58

Our businesses aren't state owned or run.

No, your state is business owned and run.

Sorry, I could not resist.

Seriously: Andy, Bitt and others pretty much said what I wanted to. However, let me stress this: not every complaint about American policy is a sign of animosity. I certainly don't hate USA, even less its citizens. We like the friendly giant, but we are wary of an elephant in a china shop, and we don't trust empire builders.

People here are rather well informed and don't tend to pass judgments based on prejudice. (A year or so ago an American here wrote that I was better informed about America than most of its inhabitants; I am proud if it, but I am a bit forced to be: quite often blunders of American policy affect me as much or more than those of 'my own' politicians.) So, our American friends (and I mean friends), don't react paranoically to out criticisms here: we share the world, and your country, by its own choice, has unproportional share of responsibility for the future of it. Try to listen here and there to a view from outside.

Cheers!
Posted by: tonyc

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 12:40

and your country, by its own choice, has unproportional share of responsibility for the future of it.
Don't you mean "by its own success"? The last time I checked, a country can't just decide that they're going to be a superpower. Furthermore, most countries which begin to climb the ladder end up falling from grace rather quickly. You phrase your argument as if one day, we just decided we were going to take an "unproportional" share. We *earned* that share. And our responsible use of that power (in most cases) is what allows us to keep it.

The "empire builder" comment is just plain ridiculous, and nullifies your pat-on-the-back about not passing judgements based on prejudice. America might throw its weight around a little bit on foreign policy matters, and mistakes have certainly been made (Vietnam being one of the most recognizable.) But nothing America's ever done has been an effort to build an empire, take over someone else's land, or anything of the sort. I'm not so delusional to think that every move the U.S. has ever made is of the noblest intentions of making the world a better place, but to call us imperialists is taking things a little too far.

This quote from Colin Powell (one of the few in the Bush Administration I respect) sums up how much land the U.S. is after in its world affairs (source)

"We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last hundred years and we’ve done this as recently as the last year in Afghanistan and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in, and otherwise we have returned home to seek our own, you know, to seek our own lives in peace, to live our own lives in peace. But there comes a time when soft power or talking with evil will not work where, unfortunately, hard power is the only thing that works."

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 12:49

But nothing America's ever done has been an effort to build an empire, take over someone else's land, or anything of the sort.
Perhaps you should read your history about the Panama Canal.
Posted by: tonyc

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 13:00

Hmm. I'll admit I'm not up on my canal history, but this encyclopedia entry about the canal's history doesn't reek of imperialism to me. Especially since, as of 1999, the Canal is under Panamanian control. It sounds to me like the U.S. pretty much purchased all the rights along the way to make the canal happen.

Another quote I saw in my googling said "the U.S. has at least as much right to the Canal as it does to Texas" and that seems about right to me. The fact that we've since released control to the Panama government would seem to underscore our lack of interest in having it be part of our "empire."
Posted by: blitz

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 13:11

The Panama Canal. Would Panama have the Panama Canal without the US?
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 13:11

Actually, Texas is another good example. In fact, all of Manifest Destiny.

From that entry, though:
Active negotiations led in 1846 to a treaty, by which the republic of New Granada (consisting of present-day Panama and Colombia) granted the United States transit rights across the Isthmus of Panama in return for a guarantee of the neutrality and sovereignty of New Granada.

...

The Hay-Herrán Treaty, signed (Jan., 1903) with Colombia, would have given the United States a strip of land across the Isthmus of Panama in return for an initial cash payment of $10 million and an annuity of $250,000, but the Colombian senate refused to ratify it. An insurrection, involving Bunau-Varilla and other proponents of the canal as well as the regional population, was encouraged by the United States. Panama rose in revolt on Nov. 3, 1903, declaring itself independent of Colombia. Invoking the treaty of 1846, the United States sent an American warship to Panama, and its presence prevented Colombian troops from quelling the outbreak. The new republic was formally recognized three days later, and on Nov. 17 the Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty was signed, granting to the United States, in return for the same terms offered Colombia, exclusive control of a canal zone in perpetuity, other sites necessary for defense, and sanitary control of Panama City and Colón. Colombia’s efforts to secure redress for the loss of Panama later resulted in ratification of a treaty (1921) by which the United States paid Colombia $25 million, and Colombia recognized the independence of Panama.
So the US decided they wanted Panama to build a canal, fomented revolution in Panama, and somehow claimed rights to have a warship in the area, preventing the rebellion from being quelled, based on a treaty with a country that no longer existed that stated that the US couldn't intervene.

And I think that understates the case.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 13:29

proper rules of engagement
While I totally understand your point -- war is hell and all -- if he's going to complain that they're not following the Geneva Convention, he should do so himself:
[The] prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, in Cuba, where 641 men (nine of whom are British citizens) are held, breaches no fewer than 15 articles of the third convention. The US government broke the first of these (article 13) as soon as the prisoners arrived, by displaying them, just as the Iraqis have done, on television. In this case, however, they were not encouraged to address the cameras. They were kneeling on the ground, hands tied behind their backs, wearing blacked-out goggles and earphones. In breach of article 18, they had been stripped of their own clothes and deprived of their possessions. They were then interned in a penitentiary (against article 22), where they were denied proper mess facilities (26), canteens (28), religious premises (34), opportunities for physical exercise (38), access to the text of the convention (41), freedom to write to their families (70 and 71) and parcels of food and books (72).
Source: The Guardian
Posted by: tfabris

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 13:40

They were then interned in a penitentiary (against article 22)
As opposed to interned in a posh hotel? I haven't read those articles, but where are we supposed to intern prisoners, other than in a prison?
Posted by: Roger

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 13:46

The last time I checked, a country can't just decide that they're going to be a superpower.


No, but it can decide not to be a super-power.

an effort to build an empire


We're not necessarily talking about occupying the land. It's enough that US throws its weight around in order to exert influence over other countries, for the benefit of US corporations. Chile is a good example of this.

In a way, the US is lucky in this regard. When the British decided that they wanted to trade with other countries (in order to enrich their own merchant class), we actually had to invade them with troops. The US gets to use McDonalds and Disney.

Part of the problem is that we here in Europe see (from our perspective at least), the US making some of the same foreign policy decisions/mistakes that we did when we were empire-building. How can we tell the difference?

Don't get me wrong. I like America. I like all of the Americans that I've met -- both in person, and on the BBS. But, face it, your government comes across as arrogant, and misconstruing our criticism of US policy as criticism of US citizens is entirely missing the point.

Posted by: Roger

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 13:52

where are we supposed to intern prisoners, other than in a prison?

From here:

Art 22. Prisoners of war may be interned only in premises located on land and affording every guarantee of hygiene and healthfulness. Except in particular cases which are justified by the interest of the prisoners themselves, they shall not be interned in penitentiaries.

Prisoners of war interned in unhealthy areas, or where the climate is injurious for them, shall be removed as soon as possible to a more favourable climate.

The Detaining Power shall assemble prisoners of war in camps or camp compounds according to their nationality, language and customs, provided that such prisoners shall not be separated from prisoners of war belonging to the armed forces with which they were serving at the time of their capture, except with their consent.


To be fair, I'm not entirely sure how the US is in contravention of this article. I assume that the proscription of penitentiaries is designed to prevent POWs being locked up along with criminals -- which would imply that they were criminals.

Moreover, it specifically states that "The Detaining Power" should build camps for the prisoners.

About the only thing in here that I'm not sure about is whether the "climate [in Cuba] is injurious for them".

Edit: The introduction to the Geneva Convention is here
Posted by: blitz

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 13:54

if he's going to complain that they're not following the Geneva Convention, he should do so himself

By their very nature, those people are illegal combatants. The idea of illegal combatants was not invented to persecute civilians who take up arms but to protect civilians that choose not to and to safeguard all civilians from the direct action of military force. Here is a link that explains how it works and why it is important. If you want, you can skip to the second to the last paragraph and get the gist.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 14:00

I'm unsure how people defending themselves in their own country (to be clear, in this case, it's Afghanistan) against an attacking force (to be clear, I supported that action) can be illegal combatants.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 14:02

To be fair, I'm not entirely sure how the US is in contravention of this article.
They are in the penitentiary of the base in Guantanamo Bay. It's a military jail, not a POW camp.
Posted by: blitz

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 14:09

I'm unsure how people defending themselves in their own country (to be clear, in this case, it's Afghanistan) against an attacking force (to be clear, I supported that action) can be illegal combatants.

Because they are not clearly identified as a soldier. Does that make sense? If it were legal for combatants can be dressed in civilian clothes and act like a civilian and then take pot shots at clearly identified enemy combatants then all civilians would then be suspect and the civilians who wish immunity from being shot at on sight will be much more likely to be shot at on sight because the ennemy combatants can't tell the difference. That's why it is a rule of war.
Posted by: Roger

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 14:10

It's a military jail, not a POW camp.

But if it's not (currently) got criminals in it, then it might not be classed as a penitentiary. I see your point, though.

I think the killer clause is the one that requires that the POWs be quartered in equivalent conditions to the US troops, though (but that's Article 25).
Posted by: Roger

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 14:12

Because they are not clearly identified as a soldier.

Specifically (III.Art4.2.b): that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance

Although:

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

...might be a getout clause, provided that they then organise themselves.
Posted by: blitz

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 14:14

They are in the penitentiary of the base in Guantanamo Bay. It's a military jail, not a POW camp.

See above. If you accept they are illegal combatants then the US cannot be in violation of the Geneva Convention. The real argument is whether they are illegal combatants. I think the US freely admits they are not following the Geneva Covention with regards to those detainees (that sounds so much nicer).
Posted by: blitz

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 14:18

...might be a getout clause, provided that they then organise themselves.

Understood. Maybe the UN could pass a resolution with "serious consequences" if the US doesn't release them. [just a little poke at the UN].
Posted by: Roger

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 14:18

The real argument is whether they are illegal combatants.

Even if we accept that they are illegal combatants (and are thus not covered by the Geneva Convention), they're not being treated equivalently to other criminals held in the USA. The way in which they are being treated (blackout goggles, no access to legal representation, etc.) is a flagrant breach of international human rights law.
Posted by: JBjorgen

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 14:19

To be fair...is there any nation in any major war that has come as close to following the Geneva convention as we have?

I've read accounts written by WWII vets of shooting soldiers who were trying to surrender (both by allies and axis.)

Here we are mincing over whether Guantanamo is a prison or POW camp, while it's probably a resort compared to how ANY troops were quartered at the time the Geneva Convention was written.

EDIT: I have a close friend stationed down there right now...I'll try to get a hold of him and ask him what the conditions are like for the detainees
Posted by: blitz

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 14:21

This is a flagrant breach of international human rights law.

I am uncertain as to this reference. Just curious... What human rights law specifically affords that right? Does it matter that they are not being held in the US proper?
Posted by: Roger

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 14:24

To be fair...is there any nation in any major war that has come as close to following the Geneva convention as we have?

To be fair, you're not following the Geneva convention in this case, so your point is moot .

In all honesty, I have no evidence that, in general, the US is worse (or better) at following the Geneva Convention than any other nation involved in a conflict. I assume that (based on the fact that the US is a civilised nation), the US would follow it pretty closely.
Posted by: JBjorgen

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 14:25

So is it not a bit two-faced to hold the US to it exclusively? Are you going to tell me that the UK and the rest of Europe follow the Geneva convention to the tee?

EDIT: I see your point...yes...it may be wrong of our goverment to complain about Gevena violations when we don't follow them completely. But regardless...Iraq has been in violation of human rights by any standard you hold them against.
Posted by: Roger

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 14:30

What human rights law specifically affords that right?


From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which admittedly isn't law:

Article 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Posted by: wfaulk

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 14:43

Here we are mincing over whether Guantanamo is a prison or POW camp, while it's probably a resort compared to how ANY troops were quartered at the time the Geneva Convention was written.
That's a niggling point (though it is codified, so someone thought it was important).

The important thing, I think, is that I believe that these people should be treated better, even if there wasn't a codified set of rules. The US, I thought, was based on the ideas that all men are created equal. If it's true that US citizens accused of similar ``crimes'' are treated better, then that inequality spits in the basis of our country.

I know that there are no US laws that say so, but there shouldn't have to be.
Posted by: blitz

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 14:43

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

I see. So it is not specifically tied to equal treatment to foreigners in and civilian of a particular nation. I guess one would just have to determine whether it is inhuman or degrading treatment to detain them in ... sunny Guantanamo Bay. [you have to say the last part in your game show host voice as they would when announcing a trip].
Posted by: bonzi

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 14:59

Don't you mean "by its own success"? The last time I checked, a country can't just decide that they're going to be a superpower. Furthermore, most countries which begin to climb the ladder end up falling from grace rather quickly. You phrase your argument as if one day, we just decided we were going to take an "unproportional" share. We *earned* that share. And our responsible use of that power (in most cases) is what allows us to keep it.

Well, I guess we are talking about those cases when the power is not used responsibly (more on that later). True, a contry can't just decide to be superpower, but it can decide not to be. I am not sure it would be wise, but the choice is there.

The "empire builder" comment is just plain ridiculous, and nullifies your pat-on-the-back about not passing judgements based on prejudice. America might throw its weight around a little bit on foreign policy matters, and mistakes have certainly been made (Vietnam being one of the most recognizable.) But nothing America's ever done has been an effort to build an empire, take over someone else's land, or anything of the sort. I'm not so delusional to think that every move the U.S. has ever made is of the noblest intentions of making the world a better place, but to call us imperialists is taking things a little too far.

Just US policy towards Latin America in 19th and 80% of 20th century would earn it label 'imperialist' with the same right as to Britain or France of 19th century. There was no dictator too unsavory to install and support if that suited US economic interests.

That changed a lot, but current US foreign policy is lead under delusion of mission of global empire building. 'Wolfowitz doctrine' (about a decade old) seems to be shaping most of the present administration's moves. This and this are two articles on this that I picked almost at random. Here is link to some thoughts from American academia (I think I already linked to that somewhere - read particularly the second part, by Paul W. Schroeder). The common thread (from reading and talking with some diplomats I know) is that foreigners are wary of America; American intellectuals are affraid for America.

BTW, don't you find establishment of Department of Homeland Security amusing? What is then Department of Defense defending, if not homeland?

This quote from Colin Powell (one of the few in the Bush Administration I respect) sums up how much land the U.S. is after in its world affairs

"We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last hundred years and we’ve done this as recently as the last year in Afghanistan and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in, and otherwise we have returned home to seek our own, you know, to seek our own lives in peace, to live our own lives in peace. But there comes a time when soft power or talking with evil will not work where, unfortunately, hard power is the only thing that works."


While Europe has much to thank US for its role in WWII (quite late role, BTW - US entered the war when, for example, battle for Britain was already won), especially France, I hope you are not implying US did that solely for altruism? Surely, prospect of first Hitler and later Stalin ruling the continent did not look good for American global interests, no?

I think US did not have any ulterior motives, say, in Kosovo campaign (except perhaps showing Europe a bit how is that done, after they have failed miserably). Afghanistan intervention could fairly be (and was, by most of the world) considered self-defence. But there were no legitimate reasons whatsoever to enter the war in Iraq now (after going through the motions of reestablishing the regime of UN inspections). The same Mr. Powell you quote (and whom I also respect the most of the current administration) balked today at the idea that interim administration in post-war Iraq should be organized or sanctioned by UN. Contracts for infrastructure and oil-field reconstruction have already been awarded, without bids, to 'buddies' (e.g. the company used to be headed by Dick Cheney), to be paid for, at undisclosed price, by Iraqi oil...

I hope that (I think your) reasoning from another thread about swift improvement of common Iraqi lives will prove correct, and I will be happy to renounce my scepticism. However, see Afghanistan a year later. Is improvement big enough (especially outside of Kabul) to more then balance casualties (in the eyes of domestic population)? Probably is, but I am not sure...
Posted by: blitz

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 15:03

BTW, don't you find establishment of Department of Homeland Security amusing? What is then Department of Defense defending, if not homeland?

There is a prohibition in the US from using military forces inside the US. So from your point of view, Yes it might be amusing or seem redundant... but within the borders of the US, the DOD has no jurisdiction.
Posted by: tonyc

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 15:04

So the US decided they wanted Panama to build a canal, fomented revolution in Panama, and somehow claimed rights to have a warship in the area, preventing the rebellion from being quelled, based on a treaty with a country that no longer existed that stated that the US couldn't intervene.

Hmm. In some further research, I found this page which goes into a little more detail about the nature of the revolt.

"While careful not to endorse the revolt, Roosevelt discreetly let it be known that the U.S. would view this as a positive development and could be counted on to act accordingly. Critics later charged that Roosevelt conspired to instigate the revolution in Panama. In fact, fearing that the U.S. might choose an alternate route through Nicaragua, an enterprising group of Panamanian businessmen--anxious to reap the commercial benefits of the canal--seized the moment. There had been numerous uprisings in the region, and the U.S. had helped suppress them in the past. As Roosevelt later put it, "While I was President I kept my foot on these revolutions… [in this case] I did not have to foment it; I simply lifted my foot."

So it doesn't seem to me that the U.S. encouraged the revolt, it just sounds like the revolt was there and they chose to selectively not stop it because it was in their interest. Sending the warships in is a different story, and obviously they were protecting their interests in the canal.

So maybe 100 years ago, through careful maneuvering, a bit of military might, and a lot of cash, we got control of a canal in Panama. Which we've since relinquished control of entirely. That makes us imperialists today?
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 15:08

BTW, don't you find establishment of Department of Homeland Security amusing? What is then Department of Defense defending, if not homeland?
I don't find it amusing in the least. I find it scary. ``Homeland'' is a word they used a lot in that PNAC paper I went on a harague about a while back. In addition, the fact that they use that word at all is scary. If the continental US is the ``homeland'', as I assume, then what else is it that we're defending? This goes hand-in-hand with Bush's use of the phrase ``sovereign right'' to enter Iraq in his speech announcing the ultimatum given to Iraq.

This all smacks very heavily of colonialism and imperialism. I'm not necessarily saying that it is, though I believe it to be so, but it sure does sound a hell of a lot like it. (I fear I've started another tangent.)
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 15:13

That makes us imperialists today?
No. But that wasn't what you said:
But nothing America's ever done has been an effort to build an empire, take over someone else's land, or anything of the sort.
I think that the article you quote may be a little apologetic. I may be a little harsh. The truth is probably somewhere in between. Regardless, it was to the US's interests to have that rebellion succeed, and they did what needed to be done to get it, regardless of the exact methods.
Posted by: bonzi

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 15:14

If it's true that US citizens accused of similar ``crimes'' are treated better, then that inequality spits in the basis of our country.

It doesn't always help to be US citizen - one can still be pronounced 'enemy combatant' and denied legal protection.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 15:15

Yeah. Don't get me started on how all of this has helped Ashcroft's ideals of resticting civil liberties.
Posted by: tonyc

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 15:16

The US gets to use McDonalds and Disney.
You're picking examples which make it very easy for me to, again, respond "does the world need to have McDonalds and EuroDisney?" Just because we've created things that have an appeal abroad, we're imperialists?
Part of the problem is that we here in Europe see (from our perspective at least), the US making some of the same foreign policy decisions/mistakes that we did when we were empire-building. How can we tell the difference?
Well I'm trying to see how you can relate the use of McDonalds and Disney to the acquisition of, say, India.
Don't get me wrong. I like America. I like all of the Americans that I've met -- both in person, and on the BBS. But, face it, your government comes across as arrogant, and misconstruing our criticism of US policy as criticism of US citizens is entirely missing the point.
This is my favorite part of this whole argument. Instead of illustrating things with apples-to-apples comparisons, everything I've been getting in response to my questions has been "well, the U.S. comes off as arrogant." I think Bush and most of his administration are complete dopes. Did Bill Clinton's administration also come off as arrogant across the pond? Or is this "arrogance" tied to the policies and not the actual people making them? How long have these "arrogant policies" existed? And can you people please cite one or several that are within the last 100 years and doesn't involve McDonalds, Starbucks, Border's, or Disney?!?
Posted by: jimhogan

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 15:16

, I found this page which goes into a little more detail about the nature of the revolt.

"While careful not to endorse the revolt, Roosevelt discreetly let it be known that the U.S. would view this as a positive development ........ As Roosevelt later put it, "While I was President I kept my foot on these revolutions… [in this case] I did not have to foment it; I simply lifted my foot."


Tony, allow me to recommend the recent biography of Roosevelt, _Theodore Rex_ by Edmund Morris. While it is what I would call a balanced and generally favorable review of Roosevelt's person and presidency, it goes into some length on the machinations and persons behind the Panama/Panama Canal "takeover" and I will say that the account came a lot closer to the case as presented by Bitt than in the account (apologia?) you discovered.

And it was a great read.
Posted by: bonzi

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 15:17

If the continental US is the ``homeland'', as I assume, then what else is it that we're defending? This goes hand-in-hand with Bush's use of the phrase ``sovereign right'' to enter Iraq in his speech announcing the ultimatum given to Iraq.

This all smacks very heavily of colonialism and imperialism. I'm not necessarily saying that it is, though I believe it to be so, but it sure does sound a hell of a lot like it.



My point exactly.
Posted by: tonyc

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 15:19

No. But that wasn't what you said:

Yes, and I admitted not having good knowledge of the Panama example, and I concede that we probably acted a bit heavy-handed in that situation. Having lost on that point, I'm now trying to find more recent examples, which would be more relevant to the "current foreign policy" that everyone is bemoaning.
Posted by: Roger

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 15:51

Hey, I'm not arguing the case very well. Forget I mentioned Disney -- I can rarely help having a subtle dig even when I'm trying to argue sensibly -- it's as much trying to deflate my own self-important sense of windbaggery as the other persons.

Moving on from that:

Just because we've created things that have an appeal abroad, we're imperialists?

To a certain extent, yes, albeit unwittingly.

everything I've been getting ... "the U.S. comes off as arrogant"

That's because it's true. I'm not saying that the US is arrogant. What I'm saying is that the US needs to take more care not to appear arrogant. The current administration is failing miserably, IMO.

dictionary.com has this:

"arrogant: Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance."

...which just about sums up -- to my mind -- current US foreign policy (overbearing).

Did Bill Clinton's administration also come off as arrogant across the pond?

No. Not particularly.

I didn't really want to get into an argument about "US imperialism" -- I will happily concede that traditional, territorial, imperialism doesn't describe the US. If anything, the US (government/populace) is traditionally isolationist.

So, in order to clarify/alter my standpoint about US imperialism, I had a quick poke around on Google for recent commentary. I found the following:

"The US is imperialist"



"No it's not"



The commentary that accuses the US of imperialism is reactionary, and rarely on point, but I'm trying to give you an idea of what you're up against.

I also found this: Why Don't They Like Us?

and this: The Myth of Cultural Imperialism, which (based on a brief skim -- I'll read it more fully later) is a fairly balanced discussion of the "cultural imperialism" that I was trying to talk about.

So, to summarise: Some people think that America is arrogant. It's a fact, whether it's wrong or right. See if you can change their impressions.
Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 16:05

In reply to:

Did Bill Clinton's administration also come off as arrogant across the pond?

No. Not particularly.




I'm wondering why nobody complained that Clinton skipped the whole UN process on Kosovo because Russia promised a veto and instead went the NATO route. Is it simply because the cause was more univerally appealing? Was it because he wasn't a Republican? To be honest, I didn't even notice that we skipped the UN on this one. I just assumed Russia was mad that we were making all of their weapons (their main export) look like junk. But Russia was kind enough to provide our opponent with the only type of radar that can be used to shoot down a F117A stealth fighter. [shrugs]

As one comedian said, "The only time that Clinton cared about the U.N. is when it was bracketted by the C and the T." :P
Posted by: g_attrill

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 16:13

http://www.kare11.com/news/news-article.asp?NEWS_ID=44083 (Pledge of Allegiance Bill Passes in House)

Just to butt in here - I notice the bill "also calls for more instruction in flag etiquette".

If you ever have to hang/design a Union Flag for gawd's sake make sure it's the correct way up. I have seen it hung upside-down many times, often in places that should know better. A couple of times I've seen it printed in newspapers and printed on vehicles and hoardings.

The key point to remember is that the St.Patrick's cross (in red) is rotated counter-clockwise, leaving a wide band on the top edge. When you know this it is very obvious when you see one upside-down.



Gareth
Posted by: Roger

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 16:14

Was it because he wasn't a Republican?

From this side of the pond, we can't tell the difference, so I don't think that was it.
Posted by: genixia

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 18:30

I think that it helped a little that neither Clinton or his VP were 'big-oil' and that Kosovo is hardly noted for it's oil exports.

A lot of the scepticism over this Gulf War has arisen from distrust over the motive. The fact that Halliburton had been awarded a contract in Iraq before a single shot had been fired hardly helped to allay this distrust.

I also think that while Clinton's complete avoidance of the UN route was not really desirable, it's easier to maintain respect for someone who effectively says "This needs to be done, I can do it, I'm gonna do it, look I've done it and it helped" than it is to maintain respect for someone who says "This needs to be done, I can do it, I'm gonna do it, How can I legitimise my decision?".

Hmm. I'm not sure whether that will be understood as intended. Let me analogise;
Say you want a $10000 tool to perform your job. Although this new tool would potentially allow you to perform significantly more effectively, no one has complained about your work whilst you've been using the old one. So you ask your boss, he asks his boss and so on, until eventually the proposal gets put to the board of directors who due to the company's poor financial health, advise against it. Then you go and buy it anyway because you had already made the decision. Would you be surprised if everyone was pissed at you?
Now suppose that instead of asking, you just ordered the thing and had the invoice sent to the accounts department. By the time the invoice is sent and the accounts department trace who put the order in, you can prove that the productivity gains were worth the outlay. After an initial grilling you would probably be recognised as a prudent risk taker.





Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 19:02

So you're saying the Bush should have never seeked UN approval because they would have just said no anyway?

And for the record, my "just say you're Canadian" tactic (which I've never actually used) was only thought of out of fear of being killed because I'm American (no matter how nice I am to people) not because I wanted to destroy a hotel room like a rock star and blame it on someone from Toronto. It might be hiding behind another flag, but it's not disgracing another country. I doubt many Canadians would mind.

I'm in a unique position. I'm actually from Dearborn, Michigan. Yes it's home to Ford Motor Company and a short drive to General Motors Headquarters and Chrysler's too (so we get a lot of international visitors), but it's an even shorter drive to Canada. I've known many Canadians in my life as either friends, co-workers or girlfriends.

My favorite topic to discuss when I meet someone new from abroad (even if it's just across the Detroit River) is politics and international affairs. But I've never really run into some of the opinions being expressed here. I guess Tony and I and a few others feel a bit backed into a corner or at least that our nation is a bit unappreciated even when we do admit our mistakes (all of us have fully admitted that our track record is less than perfect.) But some of you are also getting a bit frustrated that we "still aren't getting the point". I think because of the war and the events leading up to it, we are all a bit emotional and/or passionate about how we are expressing ourselves.

But it's great that we can have an informed debate here without any pot shots or name calling. Another thing that I've noticed is the lack of "politicising" the war discussion. I think Michael Moore lost all of his credibility during his speach at the Oscars when he basically said that Bush wasn't really elected. He just showed his true colors - he isn't against the war so much as against Bush.

One final thing, if any of you think that Dearborn, Michigan sounds familiar, it's because you may have heard of it in the news lately. Dearborn has the largest concentration of Arabic peoples (from many nations) outside of the Middle East. So due to that and the fact that quite a few arrests have been made here on terrorism charges, everytime you hear of "Arab-American viewspoints" it was most likely recorded a few miles from here. I've been lucky enough to talk about Bin Laden and Hussein with a few people from Yemen and Lebanon. Maybe they weren't being forthcoming with me, but they were a bit kinder than genixia!
Posted by: mlord

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 19:29

It might be hiding behind another flag, but it's not disgracing another country. I doubt many Canadians would mind.
Many Canadians might think that somewhat presumptuous.

We do on the whole mind, but will be nice to you regardless. We mind, because when enough of you folks pretend to be us, the bad guys eventually will catch on, and then we may be confused with you folks. We've taken reasonable care over the years to not inspire entire major religions and peoples into terrorizing our nation and people, and we would like not to overly confuse the bad guys as to who we aren't.

Cheers
Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 21:06

Fair enough.
Posted by: genixia

Re: All's Fair - 27/03/2003 22:56

So you're saying the Bush should have never seeked UN approval because they would have just said no anyway?


Well, we do have to recognise that there is a difference between the Kosovo situation (trying to effect peace) and full-scale invasion of a country to effect a regime change. I don't think that Clinton would have invaded Iraq without first trying the UN route either. I suspect that he would have had more success with the UN though, specifically with a second resolution.
Clinton had a lot more UN credibility due to his Israeli-Palestine peace process efforts, and would have stood a greater chance of getting Arab nations onboard. (And this despite his Kosovo operations)
Bush managed to drop that ball completely, and hence the UN process was a lot more difficult than it could have been. Gen. Wesley Clarke stated categorically tonight that there won't be any stability in the region until the Israel/Palestine situation stabilises. Curiously enough, Bush had just publically re-iterated his support for a peace process there merely hours after Tony Boy had left town.

I also really do believe that the motivation distrust I mentioned earlier had a big bearing - and that hurdle would have been less for Clinton.

Very soon after it became clear that GWB had won the 2000 election, my wife (a USAian) stated "Well I guess we'll be invading Iraq soon". Regardless of whether it is the right thing to do or not, it was hardly unexpected, especially after the 'Axis of Evil' speech, and that made the diplomatic path a rocky one.

Ironically, despite the anti-French sentiment that has been expressed in the US, I think that in years to come we'll reflect that the French hard line position combined with Saddam's complete disregard for UN resolutions was the defining factor that killed any chance of a non-military solution, more so than the US/UK military posturing.

However, this doesn't bode well. Already politicians are trying to ensure US corporate interests are promoted in the reconstruction of Iraq. I'm sure that when the Iraqis realise in a few years that the cellphones they've bought won't roam to any of their neighbors countries that they're going to be really happy. When they discover that the motivating factor in the decision was US corporate profits, they're going to be ecstatic. And surely when they realise that one of the added benefits of CDMA is the potential of GPS location ('for emergency calls'), and that echelon is probably watching their every move....
Ok, so maybe the choice of a cellphone system is fairly irrelevant in the scale of things. But I'd bet that's only the tip of the iceberg.
Now I should be clear - it's not obvious to me where the money to pay this will come from. On the one hand, we've got the Administration asking for a supplemental that includes provisions to help reconstuct Iraq, ie US taxpayers.
On the other, we've got politicians saying that the Iraqi oil will pay for reconstruction through an expansion of the UN oil-for-food program. The cynic in me suspects that US taxpayer dollars will be used for reconstruction (including such US-centric provisions) along with the expectation that Iraqi oil pays back the 'loan'. (With interest...)
I really hope I'm wrong. I really can't see how such actions would help US foreign relations in the middle east.

Anyway, I wasn't trying to be unkind earlier, although I'll admit I was being blunt and provocative with my questions.
Posted by: muzza

Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 06:41

I just got so mad when I heard about this latest turn of events. is the US admin stupid. Haven't they been listening to what Osama has been saying? His biggest problem is the US stepping onto 'holy' arab soil. Any presence is abhorrent to him. Putting a temporary US administration in is just inviting him.
He may be a crackpot, but he's a very dangerous crackpot.
This would be the first of many irresponsible things the US could do.
Posted by: blitz

Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 07:07

He may be a crackpot, but he's a very dangerous crackpot.

I'm confused ... who are you calling a crackpot? President Bush or Usama?
Posted by: tonyc

Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 08:26

bonzi:
BTW, don't you find establishment of Department of Homeland Security amusing? What is then Department of Defense defending, if not homeland?
wfaulk:
I don't find it amusing in the least. I find it scary. ``Homeland'' is a word they used a lot in that PNAC paper I went on a harague about a while back. In addition, the fact that they use that word at all is scary. If the continental US is the ``homeland'', as I assume, then what else is it that we're defending? This goes hand-in-hand with Bush's use of the phrase ``sovereign right'' to enter Iraq in his speech announcing the ultimatum given to Iraq.

Boy, there is no conspiracy theory too far-fetched for you guys!

Let's review the facts.

The newly-formed Department of Homeland Security was formed to address the lack of one umbrella organization to make sure that various departments within the U.S. government are communicating properly. The idea is that if there is accountability straight up to a cabinet position, the CIA, FBI, INS, and dozens of other alphabet organizations will communicate more. It's also designed to bring State and local governments, police forces, etc. into closer, more consistent communication with federal agencies which are tasked with anti-terrorism oversight.

The DoD is, as it has always been, primarily concerned with the U.S. armed forces, for defense of the country in a military sense. The Homeland Security position obviously needs the backing of the armed forces, and if a serious terrorist incident occurs, the armed forces are certainly available. But the DHS didn't suddenly come about because our military is no longer concerned with defending within our borders. It is there because the attacks on 9/11/01 showed a consistent lack of cooperation between various governmental agencies. BOTH the DoD and the DHS are concerned with defending within our borders, and, in fact, both are concerned with matters abroad, as the DHS assuredly gets involved with counterterrorism efforts abroad.

Also, the word "defense" is used throughout the world to mean not only defense within a country's borders, but also defending that country's interests abroad. You guys are acting like the U.S. military is the only military that's ever gone to another country to wage war. Ever heard that the best defense is a good offense? I suppose you had a problem when the U.S. went to the "defense" of European nations during WWII?

You guys are really weakening some otherwise-plausible arguments with ridiculous conspiracy theories. To think that somehow the foundation of the DHS reflects on a shift in the role of the U.S. military is preposterous. If 9/11 didn't happen, there would be no DHS.
While Europe has much to thank US for its role in WWII (quite late role, BTW - US entered the war when, for example, battle for Britain was already won), especially France, I hope you are not implying US did that solely for altruism? Surely, prospect of first Hitler and later Stalin ruling the continent did not look good for American global interests, no?
Yes, and the U.S. is the first country to ever sit on the sidelines of a war because getting involved in the war did not suit its interests, right? Fact is, despite this isolationism, the U.S. was lending economic support prior to entering the war militarily.

Can you blame our country for being hesitant to send troops to Europe after losing so many in WWI? Once the true threat was understood (with France conquered and Britain falling fast) the U.S. realized the Europeans weren't going to be able to solve their own problems, so we reluctantly joined the SECOND war that we had absolutely no hand in creating. How can you on one hand say that the U.S. didn't enter WWII soon enough, and on another hand criticize the U.S. for intervening in other countries' foreign affairs?

Oh, I get it, isolationism and neutrality was a bad thing back then, but now, our desire to protect democracy abroad and stop evil dictators from turning into the NEXT Hitler is bad. What the fuck are we supposed to do to make you happy?

Look, I wanted the U.S. to do more to gain international support for action in Iraq. But the weapons inspection process was a complete sham, and it's very convenient that the countries most opposed to the war were the ones with economic ties to Iraq, including Russia, who has been supplying them with night vision goggles, GPS-jamming equipment, and all sorts of other goodies, in violation of U.N. sanctions. If they're not listening to the U.N., why should we?

Regarding the post-war rebuilding contracts, five American companies were involved in the bidding process that was won by the Haliburton company that Cheney is associated with. Your statement "without bids" is utterly false. While it certainly does look shady, there's no sign that anything illegal or unethical happened in the bidding process. It just looks real bad.

The bottom line is everyone, from the U.S., to France, to Russia, to Dick Cheney, is acting in their own self-interest. But for some reason, it's okay for France to protect their economic ties to Iraq, for Russia to sell munitions to Iraq... But if the U.S. wants to take care of what it sees as a threat, and realizes the rest of the world isn't going to do it, that's no good.. right?
Posted by: blitz

Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 08:48

His biggest problem is the US stepping onto 'holy' arab soil

I believe you have this backwards. His biggest problem is he is a militant Islamic extremist who wants to kill innocent people. From that, all else flows. It's called terrorism and the idea behind terrorism is to terrorize people (by killing ordinary innocent people) into doing your will even though you have no authority. He is not the government of any country much less of a country in which the US has a presence with that country's agreement.
Posted by: genixia

Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 09:05

But the DHS didn't suddenly come about because our military is no longer concerned with defending within our borders.

Actually I disagree with you here - to a point. Since the chance of any sovereign nation actually mounting a full scale invasion of the USA is virtually none, and the existing laws effectively prevent the military from acting within the US borders unless such an event happens, I don't think that military planners do spend much time planning for in-border defense. I think that this was amply demonstrated on Sept 11, 2001 when hijackers managed to fly 2 relatively slow and un-maneoverable jumbos all the way from Boston to NY without being intercepted by fighter jets. And another one into the US Military HQ. Now you could say that this was an unexpected move, or question what action any fighter jet could have taken, but I think the point is still valid. The military failed to have any defense for an in-border attack. And air defense is possibly their most important role, given the lack of credible ground/sea -based aggressors.

But, all of the alphabet organisations exist only because the military's role in domestic affairs is limited by law. I don't think that we'd like to see;
INS replaced by the Army.
FBI replaced by the Army.
Local police replaced by the Army.
State Troopers replaced by the Army.
etc.

That being said, when you look at the specialist police teams, such as anti-riot squads, SWAT teams etc, their munitions and training are such that I don't think there would be much difference if they *were* replaced by Army teams.
Posted by: blitz

Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 09:19

Actually I disagree with you here - to a point.

You are correct on this point.

The Posse Comitatus Act made it a federal crime to employ "any part of the Army or Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws." It was passed after the civil war to keep military forces from policing polling places in Southern states.

Much of it derives from the US Constitution in which (it was intended) most of the power within the United STATES remain within the States. If I remember correctly, there was a huge dispute in the War on Drugs about the use of the military in drug interdiction.

Regular Military forces are not trained to police. They are trained to help the enemies soldiers die for their country.
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 09:22

there is no conspiracy theory too far-fetched for you guys
Let me clarify my position on this. (Note that I did use the term ``harangue'' referring to myself, which is not exactly a positive comment.)

I meant to say that the terminology they use is frightening, and, I think, indicative of a particular mindset. That doesn't necessarily mean that they intend to go through with their thoughts of colonialism/imperialism, or even consciously recognize it, but the terms they use point in that direction.

Other than GWB himself, these people aren't stupid. They know what words mean, both denotatively and connotatively. I don't think that they would have used the term ``homeland'' without reason. ``Department of Domestic Security'' sounds a lot better than what we have now.

GWB saying that we have ``sovereign right'' to enter Iraq strikes the same note perhaps even more. The word ``sovereign'' means ``possessing freedom from external control'', ``possessed of supreme power'', ``unlimited in extent'', ``enjoying autonomy''. The supposed rationale for entering Iraq were those ``substantial consequences''. But those were provided for (albeit not specifically) by the UN, not by the US's supreme right. His speechwriter knows what ``sovereign'' means, even if GWB and the majority of the US populace don't.

There must be reasons they're using these words. Whether those reasons come to fruition or not is another argument.
Posted by: blitz

Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 09:31

Other than GWB himself, these people aren't stupid.

So far, this discussion has been intriguing since a lot of it is things one has learned but need to brush up on for a response. What I don't understand is why do you say this? Is it really something you believe or is it just a argument tactic?
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 09:35

Is it really something you believe
Which part? That GWB is stupid or that the rest of them aren't? Regardless, the answer to either question is, yes, I do.
Posted by: blitz

Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 09:38

That GWB is stupid[?]

Just curious, on what basis do you make that determination?
Posted by: wfaulk

Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 09:46

Observation. Mostly his inability to elucidate his speeches, especially his extemporaneous ones.

Also, history as a straight-C student. (I will admit that my standards for public office are higher than those for the average person.) Consistent business failures. Apparent inability or lack of desire to comprehend the other side of an argument (though this could conceivably be more closely related to sociopathy).

Actually, the thing that bothers me the most is (and this is a totally subjective observation) his pride in his ignorance. I absolutely cannot point to a specific episode that points this out, but I've known a good number of people who have this personality trait and there are unquantifiable (by me, at any rate) parallels between them and him.

At least he hasn't demonstrated an inability to spell. (Edit: Oh, but if he says ``new-cya-ler'' one more time, my head my explode.)
Posted by: Daria

Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 09:55

Sad that having not read the messages leading up to this, seeing this immediately told me you meant shrub.
Posted by: blitz

Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 10:13

At least he hasn't demonstrated his inability to spell.

That explains your position. Once a Grammar cop always a grammar cop.

Seriously though. I pretty well discount grades in school. Some of the more productive people who work with me spent a lot of time socializing in college (beer, women, fraternities, etc.) and what they learned was how to interact with other people. I think the published SAT for GWB is 1207 (taken once with 566Verbal & 640Math). If you correct for the 1996 recentering (see table here) it would equate to 1313 today.

Obviously his verbal skills are not up to your standards ... but whose are?
Posted by: tonyc

Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 11:20

There must be reasons they're using these words. Whether those reasons come to fruition or not is another argument.
Your role as BBS Grammarian is causing you to read way too much into these terms. Sovereign is rarely used with the connotation of "supreme power" or "unlimited in extent." I've always taken it to mean self-governing and autonomous, but not necessarily in the belligerent manner that you seem to be implying. Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.
The supposed rationale for entering Iraq were those ``substantial consequences''. But those were provided for (albeit not specifically) by the UN, not by the US's supreme right.
And the U.N. was not going to enforce those serious consequences. Ever. France would not pass any resolution that held Saddam accountable. So they were refusing to enforce the serious consequences. If anything, the U.S. is the one making sure that the letter and spirit of the existing U.N. resolutions were followed, damn the French and their desire to protect their economic interests.

Edit: More French arrogance.
But asked by The Telegraph whether he hoped American and British forces would win the military campaign to remove Saddam Hussein, he replied angrily: "I'm not going to answer. You have not been listening carefully to what I said before. You already have the answer."
...
Embarrassed French officials tried to salvage the situation by pointing out that, on French television on Monday, M de Villepin said: "Clearly, we hope the US will win this war quickly."
...
Moreover M de Villepin did himself few favours with Washington when, recalling the "bleakest time in our history" during the Second World War, he extolled Winston Churchill and Charles de Gaulle but left out Franklin D Roosevelt's role in the liberation of France.
Posted by: bonzi

Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 11:29

[On Dubya being stupid]
I agree with all of this, Bitt. Some of my friends think that he just pretends to be stupid, but I will refrain from defending that position for two reasons:
  • To do that, he would need superhuman acting abilities
  • Tony would pronounce me a crazy conspiracy theorist, this time rightfully so
  • Posted by: wfaulk

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 11:44

    Your role as BBS Grammarian is causing you to read way too much into these terms.
    If I thought that GWB was writing his own speeches, I'd agree with you. (Edit: For example, I didn't read anything into GWB's horribly inappropriate extemporaneous use of the term ``crusade'' in reference to this invasion, as I don't think that he has the quickness about him for that impropriety to have occurred to him.) The average American doesn't really know what sovereign means, and I think it makes it that much the worse.

    But speechwriters are usually very bright people, with an incredible flair for language. Honestly, I don't know the current speechwriter, so I could be wrong. But speeches of that importance go through, I'm sure, everyone in the administration, and I can't imagine they don't go through it with a fine-tooth comb. The fact that not one person brought up that sovereign means something that they didn't want to imply, or that any people who did so were overruled on it I think speaks volumes.
    And the U.N. was not going to enforce those serious consequences.
    That's not my argument. If the administration thought that the world had said something and that it had become the US's resposibility due to the rest of the world's inaction, then it's still not sovereign. I'm not arguing the correctness or incorrectness of the UN's wishy-washiness. I'm arguing the attitude of those in the Bush administration with the only evidence I've got.
    Posted by: bonzi

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 11:46

    For the record, I am the last guy who would accuse France of excess humility.
    Posted by: peter

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 11:46

    "I'm not going to answer. You have not been listening carefully to what I said before. You already have the answer."
    Leesten very carefullee, I shall say zis only onnce...

    Peter
    Posted by: tonyc

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 11:47

    That's because it's true. I'm not saying that the US is arrogant. What I'm saying is that the US needs to take more care not to appear arrogant. The current administration is failing miserably, IMO.
    I agree with you 100% on this. If there's one thing I am definitely not, it's a GWB apologist. I think he's a complete dolt. And a large portion of his cabinet is, as well. But I also know that dolts can occasionally do the right thing, even if by accident, and I'm trying to judge the current policy on its own merit, and not how someone appears to come off, or on how arrogant they might be. The U.S. has indeed gone to more of a "carry a big stick" foreign policy, but it seems they forgot about the "walk softly" portion. On this topic, I feel we're in agreement. I just think the arrogance doesn't equal bad deeds.

    Those are some very interesting links, and there are well-informed arguments on both sides. But I again think it's more perceived arrogance than actual misdeeds or imperial behavior. If Al Gore had been elected, would we look so arrogant? Is it just GWB's Texas-style arrogance that the world doesn't like?
    Posted by: wfaulk

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 11:50

    I think the published SAT for GWB is 1207
    I don't know that that is true or not -- I'll take your word for it -- but I got a score higher than that in the eighth grade, and I certainly don't think that I'm qualified for the Presidency on an intellectual level (now or then).
    Posted by: tonyc

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 11:51

    Leesten very carefullee, I shall say zis only onnce...
    LOL!

    Yeah. If it weren't for the U.S. and FDR's role in saving France, you'd be using a mock German accent instead. de Gaulle and Churchill were no slouches either, but to totally discount the U.S.'s role in the liberation and subsequent rebuilding of France is disgusting.
    Posted by: wfaulk

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 11:54

    walk softly
    Speak softly. But whatever. The gist is right. (Methinks you need to bone up on your Teddy Roosevelt history, though. )
    it's more perceived arrogance
    Yeah, but isn't this what diplomacy (and I'm not talking Iraq diplomacy, but simple dealing-with-your-neighbors diplomacy) is all about? Or all not about?
    Posted by: wfaulk

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 11:56

    but to totally discount the U.S.'s role in the ... subsequent rebuilding of France is disgusting
    Damn straight.

    I'm almost of the opinion that the Marshall Plan can almost overshadow anything else the US might ever do.
    Posted by: bonzi

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 12:17

    In all fairness, most European countries do have a single ministry/cabinet post responsible for all domestic security functions, but it is usually called Ministry of Interior or similar. US DoI seems to have different responsibilities (I meant to verify what exactly are these - something like national parks etc - but their web site is extremely unresponsive).

    I agree with Bitt about significance of word choice ('Homeland', not 'Domestic'; 'sovereign right' etc). Speech and law writers are very careful bunch.
    Posted by: wfaulk

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 12:21

    You're right. From the web site:
    The Department of the Interior (DOI) is the nation’s principal conservation agency. Our mission is to protect America’s treasures for future generations, provide access to our nation’s natural and cultural heritage, offer recreation opportunities, honor our trust responsibilities to American Indians and Alaska Natives and our responsibilities to island communities, conduct scientific research, provide wise stewardship of energy and mineral resources, foster sound use of land and water resources, and conserve and protect fish and wildlife.
    Certainly something quite different.
    Posted by: jaharkes

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 12:50

    Actually I read that as a reference to a British comedy show about WW II. I believe it was called 'allo allo'. The leader of the french (or communist?) resistance would say this pretty much every episode.

    I really loved the undercover agent, 'I was just pissing by the deur'.
    Posted by: blitz

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 13:09

    I'm almost of the opinion that the Marshall Plan can almost overshadow anything else the US might ever do.

    And the US's motivation for the Marshall plan was .... ?
    Posted by: tonyc

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 13:16

    And the US's motivation for the Marshall plan was .... ?

    Good will.

    And, as you can see, the countries that benefitted from it are thanking us with in Denis Leary style. "Thank you, thank you, thank you, and FUCK YOU!"
    Posted by: tonyc

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 13:22

    No fair, you ignored the rest of my post... You opened up the can of worms regarding U.S. response to WWII and the Dick Cheney/Haliburton stuff... Come on, fight like a man!

    I'm punting on the homeland/sovereign thing because neither of us can prove what they meant. I just know that the nature of the Department of Homeland Security was Sept 11th and not a desire to turn our armed forces into our Department of Imperialism.
    Posted by: tonyc

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 13:24

    Damn straight.

    I'm almost of the opinion that the Marshall Plan can almost overshadow anything else the US might ever do.
    Apparently, the Europeans disagree, and see that as yesterday's news... Thanks, but no thanks, Yanks!
    Posted by: bonzi

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 13:32

    And the US's motivation for the Marshall plan was .... ?

    ...primarily to fend off Soviet influence, then to open new markets, but to recipients of aid it was quite irrelevant. We have a saying: "If a guy gives you a horse, don't complain about its teeth!"

    (BTW, my parents told me that as a little kid in a summer camp, circa 1960, I ate last remnants or UNRRA peanut butter and processed cheese; apparently, I liked it )
    Posted by: blitz

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 13:32

    Good will.

    With a fair bit of US self-interest thrown in for fear of a collapse of Western Europe into further political instability and communism. Which led to "an Army of Occuputation" of the United States in Western Europe, the Cold War and finally the breakup of the Soviet Empire.
    Posted by: bonzi

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 13:34

    OK, OK, I'll be back in a ring, it's just that this thread grows too fast and I have other things to do )
    Posted by: tonyc

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 13:44

    With a fair bit of US self-interest thrown in for fear of a collapse of Western Europe into further political instability and communism. Which led to "an Army of Occuputation" of the United States in Western Europe, the Cold War and finally the breakup of the Soviet Empire.
    Like I said, good will. I suppose you would rather have communism throughout Western Europe? To me, "comrade" doesn't have a nice ring to it when spoken with a British, French, or German accent.

    Nobody's yet taken my challenge of providing an example when a Government has ever committed a major act of complete selflessness and humanitarianism that didn't have an element which was designed to protect its own interests. The Marshall Plan did so ethically and philanthropically. Does anyone here have a problem with the idea of stopping the spread of communism?
    Posted by: wfaulk

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 13:56

    Does anyone here have a problem with the idea of stopping the spread of communism?
    Yes.

    Stalin was certainly one of the more evil dictators in history, and his regime was horrendous, but the concept of communism itself is not. For example, other than some very legitimate human rights concerns, Cuba is doing quite well as a communist state. It's certainly better than when Batista was running it.

    Battling a philosophy is just stupid, unless that philosophy is ``kill 'em all'', which Communism's never was. In addition, though the Marshall Plan was one of the best examples of US foreign policy ever (hell -- anyone's foreign policy), our battles with communism usually installed or supported a more tyrannical regime than it deposed or decried.

    There are other arguments about whether or not Communism is a functionally practical government type (and I won't get into government vs. economy here; we all know what I mean), but that's not a reason to fight someone else's country over, nor is it within the scope of this argument, I think.
    Posted by: tonyc

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 14:04

    Stalin was certainly one of the more evil dictators in history, and his regime was horrendous, but the concept of communism itself is not.
    Burn him! He's a witch!
    Cuba is doing quite well as a communist state.
    Yeah, Cuba is about the closest thing we have on Earth to paradise...
    nor is it within the scope of this argument, I think.
    I think it is. Communism is indeed not "kill 'em all." But it doesn't work. It encourages each cog in the communist machine to do the minimum amount to get by, and the government will take care of them just as if they had tried harder. It encourages mediocrity. And they're all dictatorships. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.
    Posted by: blitz

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 14:05

    Does anyone here have a problem with the idea of stopping the spread of communism?

    I think the real question is not "Does anyone" but "Did anyone". Stalin was vigorously opposed to the Marshall Plan. It was not in the Soviet Union's perceived self-interest although in the long run, the US's position was proven correct. For that matter, it was not in the perceived self-interest of Germany in WWII to capitulate to the Allies. Which is somewhat analogous to the situation now in Iraq. The Iraqi government desperately feels it is not in its interest to lose the war (although it will inevitably). It remains to be seen whether the Iraqi people can (like the Europeans including Germany did) build from this loss into something better than they have today. I think the US feels the Iraqi people can do so.
    Posted by: wfaulk

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 14:06

    I don't know. Food aid to Zimbabwe? I can't think of any particular political advantage to feeding those folks. Mugabe isn't going to attack anyone we care about (politically), so it's not about deposing him for political reasons. Zimbabwe has no particular strategic advantages, not that Mugabe would let us do anything there if there were.

    I can't think of any good reason to help those folks other than it's the right thing to do.
    Posted by: wfaulk

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 14:09

    And they're all dictatorships.
    They don't have to be, though. It's just that every time the US saw a nation's democratically elected government heading towards communism, they encouraged (actively or passively) a coup. The only ones left are the malignant ones that oppress their dissidents.
    Posted by: tonyc

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 14:12

    Food aid to Zimbabwe?
    Bzzzt. Wrong on two points:
    1) I said "major act"... I don't think we committed a lot to Zimbabwe, certainly nothing on the scale of the Marshall plan.
    2) Giving aid to Zimbabwe is at least partially in self interest because it makes the U.S. look good.

    My question was a trick question, because I believe there's no such thing as a completely selfless act. Even a completely humanitarian gesture makes the individual who's committing it feel good, and elevates that person's image amongst others. Some acts are more selfish than others, of course, but my point with the Marshall plan is it was one of the more selfless. From what I've read, Marshall himself didn't design it to combat communism, but as it went through the legislative machine, that ended up being something that the average congressman (and his constituents) could latch onto.
    Posted by: tonyc

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 14:14

    They don't have to be, though. It's just that every time the US saw a nation's democratically elected government heading towards communism, they encouraged (actively or passively) a coup. The only ones left are the malignant ones that oppress their dissidents.
    My knowledge of history is pretty poor, but the scenario you describe here can't be applied to China, can it? I don't have any knowledge of the U.S. trying to encourage a coup there...
    Posted by: bonzi

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 14:15

    OK, here I am, but quickly :

    I said Europe (and France in particular) does have reasons to be very grateful, and the fact that US entered the war after understandable reluctance primarily from self-interest does not diminish that.

    I don't think UN inspections were 'sham'. They were not given enough time, and US kept repeating they had evidence Iraq has or is attempting to produce WMD, but never showed any. When finally US decided to present such 'evidence', it just turned poor Mr. Powell into laughing stock.

    As for economic interests in Iraq, I assure you I don't have any, and still think this war is not such a good idea . Another thread points to an article which pretty nicely articulates what kind of outcome I fear. So, my objections are not strictly 'legalistic' (after all, I did not object to intervention in Kosovo, perhaps partly because the guys being targeted were the same ones that kept my family running to shelter, and who put my coworker's parents into a mass grave few years before).

    As for no-bid contracts, that's what I read in American sources. If they are innacurate, I stand corrected. (But tenders were certainly not international, were they )
    Posted by: JBjorgen

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 14:17

    I believe there's no such thing as a completely selfless act


    How 'bout giving your life to save someone else?
    Posted by: wfaulk

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 14:22

    My knowledge of history is pretty poor, but the scenario you describe here can't be applied to China, can it? I don't have any knowledge of the U.S. trying to encourage a coup there...
    China became communist due to a coup (of sorts) in 1949. The US didn't recognize the new Communist government in China until 1972 (or so), instead pretending that the Nationalists in ``exile'' in Taiwan were still the legitimate government of China.

    So no, they encouraged no coup, but that was a legitimate people's uprising, as it was in Cuba. No coup probably could have been fomented. In both cases, the former governments were incompetent to corrupt.
    Posted by: tonyc

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 14:23

    I don't think UN inspections were 'sham'. They were not given enough time, and US kept repeating they had evidence Iraq has or is attempting to produce WMD, but never showed any. When finally US decided to present such 'evidence', it just turned poor Mr. Powell into laughing stock.
    The inspections came about as a result of Resolution 1441 and others. The resolution stated serious consequences. France would not allow any accountability or enforcement of serious consequences. Therefore the resolution meant nothing. Therefore, resolution is a sham, and therefore, inspections are a sham. Now, Bush and his cronies were a little pushy throughout, but the fact that someone wouldn't even agree to accountability for a resolution that was already PASSED UNANIMOUSLY makes the U.N. look just as bad.
    As for no-bid contracts, that's what I read in American sources. If they are innacurate, I stand corrected. (But tenders were certainly not international, were they)
    hehe. Sure, we fight the war, you guys come in and make the money on the rebuilding... That's about as good as Bush's "we fight the war, and U.N, even though you're irrelevant, you guys can go ahead and take care of the humanitarian situation afterwards."
    Posted by: JeffS

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 14:25

    But it doesn't work.

    Actually it could work, all it would take is perfect and selfless people and a leadership that is not only benevolent and wise, but also near-omniscient enough that all the needs of society could be identified accurately.

    Ok, so you’re right; however, I think there are a number people who would say that a country should be free to try things that don’t work. Freedom to do stupid things, interestingly enough, is fundamental to capitalism.

    By the way, I personally agree with most of the points you’ve been making throughout this thread.
    Posted by: tonyc

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 14:25

    How 'bout giving your life to save someone else?
    Touché.
    Posted by: tonyc

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 14:34

    Ok, so you’re right; however, I think there are a number people who would say that a country should be free to try things that don’t work. Freedom to do stupid things, interestingly enough, is fundamental to capitalism.
    Yes, because countries under Communist leadership are always free to try other things that don't work.

    The idea isn't that Western democracy and capitalism are the only legitimate forms of government. But the fact that a disproportionate amount of Communist states are complete dictatorships with no mechanism to go in any other direction (no open elections, etc.) So choosing Communism becomes an irreversible decision. So it's Communism, not capitalism, that is fearful of other ways of doing things.

    By the way, I personally agree with most of the points you’ve been making throughout this thread.
    Thanks, it's good to know I'm not alone here.
    Posted by: wfaulk

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 14:40

    So choosing Communism becomes an irreversible decision.
    Unfortunately, the world was never given the opportunity to have this disproved.

    On the other hand, choosing Capitalism seems to be an irreversable decision, too. I'm not sure exactly what your argument is here.

    And there are as many non-Communist tyrannies as there are Communist tyrannies (without actually counting).
    Posted by: blitz

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 14:42

    And there are as many non-Communist tyrannies as there are Communist tyrannies (without actually counting).

    A "communist tyranny" is not communism.
    Posted by: bonzi

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 14:47

    Does anyone here have a problem with the idea of stopping the spread of communism?

    With Marshall Plan? No. Otherwise, see Bitt's response.

    But it doesn't work. It encourages each cog in the communist machine to do the minimum amount to get by, and the government will take care of them just as if they had tried harder. It encourages mediocrity.

    Then why it has to be fought from outside?

    Seriously, I think that US brought more Communist dictatorships into existence than brought down. For example:
  • If Batista was not supported, Castro would have harder times comming to power. Without isolation, he would have harder time staying on power, and would less depend on Soviets (do you think he liked being their puppet?)
  • Without atmosphere of siege brought to you by Ollie North and his Contra friends, Sandinistas would have harder time eliminating everybody else from their rulling coalition. Withour supporting (Somosa ? - or was he in some other briliiant democracy?), Sandinistas would not come to power in the first place.
  • If the coup was not engineered against Prince Norodom Sihanouk (sp?), we would not have Khmere Rouge uprising against US puppet Lon Nol (?), leading to their subsequent rule of terror.
  • Even in Vietnam, the more US meddled, the more dependent on Soviets Vietnamese were (again, progression was from wide pro-independence coalition Vietminh that kicked French out, to Moscow's puppets).
  • Posted by: bonzi

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 14:53

    A "communist tyranny" is not communism.

    True (and refreshing that someone noticed that). I gave up pointing out that the fact Stallin called something 'communism' didn't make it communism.
    Posted by: bonzi

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 14:58

    France would not allow any accountability or enforcement of serious consequences.

    How the heck do you know that!?

    hehe. Sure, we fight the war, you guys come in and make the money on the rebuilding... That's about as good as Bush's "we fight the war, and U.N, even though you're irrelevant, you guys can go ahead and take care of the humanitarian situation afterwards."

    So you think it is actually as simple as plundering Iraqi oil after all, as half the world is maintaining (while I think it is far more complex and dangerous than that)?



    Posted by: bonzi

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 15:02

    there's no such thing as a completely selfless act

    Well, research of evolution indicates that altruism if often beneficial to altruist (its offspring, actually).
    Posted by: bonzi

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 15:05

    If Al Gore had been elected, would we look so arrogant?

    Well, he probably would not take Wolfowitz, Pelre and Chehey for advisers.

    I recommend you elect this guy next time you have a chance.
    Posted by: mail2mm

    Re: All's Fair -- Pledge of Allegiance - 28/03/2003 15:07

    David,

    I believe that the British curiousity about the American Pledge of Allegiance and the Americans' flag fascination stems from the two different forms of democracy in the UK and USA. The British parlimentary system with a monarchy has as its head of state the monarch (king or queen). The British and other Commonwealth countries accepting the monarch pledge alleigance to the monarch as the head of state.

    In the US the Constitution defines the three branches of government. The President, head of the executive branch, is tasked to be head of state. Since Presidents come and go, never allowed to stay in office more than eight years, Americans generally grant more respect to the position or office than the person who is, for now, the President. The American flag represents the Republic, the nation, in somewhat the same way the British monarch, the Queen, represents the British nation/people. Americans pledge alliegance to their flag not their President.

    The British have their Queen and the Americans their flag. Two different forms of democracy. Both seem to work well most of the time.

    PS - Where I went to school, Casper, Wyoming, we said the Pledge of Alleigance every morning while in elementary school, 1955-1961.
    Posted by: genixia

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 15:17

    My knowledge of history is pretty poor, but the scenario you describe here can't be applied to China, can it? I don't have any knowledge of the U.S. trying to encourage a coup there...


    No, you are right. Communism came to China through the Peoples' Revolution, because 99% of the people were fed up with the other 1% owning all of the wealth.

    Before that, China was perhaps the most capitalist country that the World has ever known. The theory that capitalism and a free market economy only promotes competition, efficiency and a fair and happy country obviously applied. The reality was that political power ended up in the hands of the wealthy, who then abused it to consolidate their wealth, and the efficiency gains obviously only benefitted the wealthy, leading eventually to widespread poverty, and then civil war.

    Now take a good hard look at the US today. Tell me how many people are in Congress. Now tell me how many of them are worth less than $5m.
    Next, take a look at legislation that has gone through Congress in recent years. Can you find more examples that really benefit the US population at large, than those that benefit corporate interests? Don't forget to check the tagged on clauses.
    Now take a look at tax figures. In 1940, corporate tax made up nearly 60% of federal tax returns, and individuals just over 40%. Today, corporate tax only makes up 13.7% of returns, with individuals paying 86.3%. Now that big tax break being targetted to the wealthy (who own and control such corporations) doesn't look so rosy. The trend indicates that individuals would be paying all of the tax receipts by sometime around 2010.
    Now look at the Enron and Tyco scandals. Have we heard *anything* recently about any possible resolution for the poor sods that lost their retirement savings?
    Next, look at the harsh penalties applied to one of the World's wealthiest company when it was found guilty of maintaining a monopoly position though illegal means. Note how many (predominately individually funded) tax dollars were spent in this prosecution. Now look at what's happening in the FCC, and how Ma Bell is restoring her power.
    Now look at how the number of people living under the poverty line is increasing, not decreasing, despite a relatively stable population size.
    Finally look at how many US children don't have basic medical insurance.

    Are the Alarm Bells ringing yet? They should be - this has all accelerated in the past 40 years, and shows no sign of slowing down. When the individual states go broke, who do you think will suffer when state systems such as unemployment benefits, education, prescription drub benefits, etc break down? The wealthy?

    I think we're missing the point. The biggest risk to The American Dream comes not from foreign 'outlaw' nations, nor from terrorist groups. It comes from the ever increasing concentration of wealth and power amongst fewer people.

    The White House needs someone with some real balls. Someone who is prepared to veto any and every bill that promotes corporate interests above those of individuals. Someone who is prepared to shout at Congress on a daily basis until they get their shit together and start writing bills that help readdress the balance.

    My fear is that it wont happen, and sometime within the next 50 years the USA will not be a very pleasant place to be.


    Sorry Tony, but since you mentioned history and China in the same breath, I thought it was worth reminding people that we could actually learn from their experience, and try and avoid the same path.
    Posted by: 753

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 15:37

    How 'bout giving your life to save someone else?

    Touché.


    Is it really selfless? It certainly is an extreme example, but if you consciously decide to give your life to save someone else, isn't the other option always worse? Are we saving a loved one because of our love for that person, because of our principles ... or because we couldn't bear a life without this precious person (and a life of blaming ourselves)?
    Posted by: wfaulk

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 15:40

    Then there's the religious argument that you'd be going to a better place, so how could it be selfless?
    Posted by: JeffS

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 15:54

    Then there's the religious argument that you'd be going to a better place, so how could it be selfless?

    If you were God. . . (since you brought up religion )

    Also, if you're not a religious person then dying for someone else would be a selfless act.
    Posted by: BartDG

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 16:11

    if you consciously decide to give your life to save someone else, isn't the other option always worse? Are we saving a loved one because of our love for that person, because of our principles ... or because we couldn't bear a life without this precious person (and a life of blaming ourselves)?

    According to research that has been done in this specific area, one of the most popular explanations for this is the one of the reproductive fitness.
    A guy called Hamilton constructed a theory about this in 1964. This theory was constructed with Darwin's "survival of the fittest theory" as a basis.
    Hamilton stated that kin selection can account for altruistic acts towards those who are genetically related to the do-gooder. It would 'pay' an individual (in terms of reproductive fitness) to die if in doing so a number of close relatives would live and reproduce. This is because the genes responsible for such altruistic behaviour are also likely to reside in the bodies of close relatives. Sacrificing oneself to save four siblings would pay greatly in terms of gene survival : since the genetic relatedness of siblings averages 50%, two genes would be saved for the price of one. To equate the loss of genes from a relative's death, more relatives must be saved than the reciprocal of the coefficient of genetic relatedness. (e.g. 1,5 = 2).
    Such behaviors are therefor selected for because they benefit the performer's kin.Such kin selection accounts for, among other things, the high degree of altruism and self-sacrifice shown by parents towards offspring in both animals and humans.
    Kin selection does not however explain why a human might do an altruistic act towards a stranger. That answer lies in the theory of reciprocal altruism, which says that it pays the individual to help save a stranger if the stranger will reciprocate this help in the future and save the life of the altruist. This assumes that the cost/benefit ratio is appropriate, that individuals are capable of recognising each other in the future and that they are likely to meet again. Of course, this strategy can give itself rise to "cheating"; acceptance of acts of altruism from others, but failing to reciprocate in the future.
    In any case the individual is often placed in the dilemma whether to cooperate or whether to cheat. This was nicely illustrated by the game "the prisoners dilemma", but that would lead me too far. If somebody is actually interested in this then I will explain this game. It's quite fun actually.
    Posted by: wfaulk

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 16:26

    And from there to the game theories of John Nash, et al., and then economic and political theory, landing us back where we started.
    Posted by: BartDG

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 16:39

    And from there to the game theories of John Nash, et al., and then economic and political theory, landing us back where we started.

    Most likely yes. Then again, history does have a tendency to repeat itself quite often!
    Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 16:46

    Bitt, Cuba is a good place to live? Ask the people in Miami about that. Hmm... I wonder why so many are hoping on rafts and floating to their deaths...

    It seems that communism/socialism is only supported by "the people" when those people are living it utter poverty. Then, "just enough to get by" is more than they have. It's weird how after thousands of years of humanity, and hundreds of attempts at successful communist governments (with everyone here so far saying they don't work) several of you still have this vision in your heads that "maybe it'll work this time if...." It's so dreamy to think of a day when I won't be able to vote, express my opinion or practice religion! Sign me up!

    Bonzi, the reason that communism is only faught from the outside is because it CAN"T be faught from within. Just ask the student uprisers in Chinese jails.

    On another note: Someone said the concept of countries falling like dominoes to communism was a silly concept. Didn't they fall like dominoes to Democracy after the Berlin Wall fell? Looking back, it seems like another country was leaving communism to their history books each week back in the early 90's.
    Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

    Re: All's Fair -- Pledge of Allegiance - 28/03/2003 16:50

    OK, I'm being a jerk about France (and I'm 1/2 French so maybe I feel I have to make up for some bad Karma), but I heard on NPR that France just made flag burning illegal and there is some law (not new) that you can't rip on their prime minister.... I'm not sure exactly what you can't do (surely you can print an editorial saying you don't like his policies) but a British mag. is being charged for printing a photo of the French Prime Minister's head on a body of a worm!
    Posted by: 753

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 17:07

    In any case the individual is often placed in the dilemma whether to cooperate or whether to cheat. This was nicely illustrated by the game "the prisoners dilemma", but that would lead me too far.


    I googled on this. It's interesting how the problem of suboptimization, as found in the Prisoners' Dilemma, underlies some of the problems appearing in evolutionary ehtics.
    Posted by: wfaulk

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 18:48

    Cuba is a good place to live? Ask the people in Miami about that.
    Ask the people who lived under Batista, and then revisit the question.
    Posted by: tonyc

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 22:02

    On the other hand, choosing Capitalism seems to be an irreversable decision, too. I'm not sure exactly what your argument is here.
    Choosing Capitalism is quite reversible. In America, if we decided communism was a good thing, we could all vote for communist senators, representatives, governors, and even a communist President. From the inside, they could change the American political system in such a way that it no longer was a democracy full of communists, but a true communist government. Now, once that's done, because communism has historically relied on iron-fist dictatorship, with no chance for people to affect change, it's irreversible, without some kind of hostile rebellion amongst the populace.

    No?

    And there are as many non-Communist tyrannies as there are Communist tyrannies (without actually counting).
    That's like going to your local grocery store and saying there are as many rotten apples as there are rotten kumquats. It's true, but only because there are a thousand apples and only 30 or 40 kumquats.

    The fact is, percentage wise, it's not even close. And to try to say that most or all communist dictatorships are only dictatorships because of foreign intervention (what you seem to be saying) is a real stretch.
    Posted by: wfaulk

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 22:22

    communism has historically relied on iron-fist dictatorship
    I don't think that necessarily follows (you seem to be equating Stalinism and Maoism with Communism):
    to try to say that most or all communist dictatorships are only dictatorships because of foreign intervention (what you seem to be saying) is a real stretch
    That's not quite what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that many to most to all of the governments that were approaching communism had their minds changed by the Western world. I don't think that there has been any country that has peacefully become communist, despite the fact that there have been any number of democratically elected communist governments that have mysteriously been followed by nationalist coups. The only countries that are communist now are so because of rebellion, not popular choice (despite the fact that those rebellions were largely popular, at least at the time).

    This could mean that it doesn't happen. It could also mean that it's never been allowed to. It's kinda like saying that a vending machine doesn't accept nickels based on the fact that every time you put a nickel in it, you hit the coin return button, and you get no product.
    apples ... kumquats
    Good point.
    Posted by: tonyc

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 22:31

    Bonzi, I can debate with you and the other good gentlemen who have been on the thread with what I consider sound logic, but I cannot possibly hang with you guys when it comes to in-depth knowledge of history. So I defer to your knowledge of many more aspects of the U.S. and world history with respect to puppet leaders and anti-Communist efforts.

    What I am quite certain of is that thwarting the spread of Communism was a good thing. The very fact that Bitt has to cite Cuba as the best example of a thriving Communist state is enough for me to be sure of that. Some things just don't work. If the U.S.'s actions have directly or indirectly caused Communism to spread, I guess I'll just say that the best-laid plans of mice and men often go astray. But to suggest that U.S. anti-communism efforts are the only things that keep Communism from being a legitimate political ideology is, to me, hard to swallow.
    Posted by: tonyc

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 22:34

    How the heck do you know that!?
    It was widely reported that, in public and in private, French leadership refused to even consider any kind of resolution that, at its end, had the threat of force. The French did not dispute these reports, either. Without force, Saddam is not accountable for disarmament, and the resolution means nothing.
    Posted by: tonyc

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 22:46

    I think we're missing the point. The biggest risk to The American Dream comes not from foreign 'outlaw' nations, nor from terrorist groups. It comes from the ever increasing concentration of wealth and power amongst fewer people.
    ...
    Sorry Tony, but since you mentioned history and China in the same breath, I thought it was worth reminding people that we could actually learn from their experience, and try and avoid the same path.
    Hey, don't apologize to me. I come here to be enlightened, and occasionally evangelize my own viewpoints in the hopes that I cause others to think about something in a slightly different way. I'm not generally big on these political or ideological debates, but with so many people firing pot-shots at America recently, I just wanted to see where people really stood. It turns out a lot of them stand on shaky ground when they criticize America, though some have also produced sound, logical explanations of their views.

    Anyway, your arguments are extremely well-formed, but I'm afraid you haven't changed my mind about any of this.... Because I already agree with everything you've said! But I do not attribute it to flaws in capitalist or democratic ideologies. I attribute it to the way our current two-party flavor of democracy has evolved, and to the inadequacies of particular individuals or groups of individuals who have held key leadership positions in our government. Our leadership does need some reforming, the taxes do need fixing, corporate America does need to be accountable... I never believed in trickle-down economics. I, like you, see these warning signs. Though I don't tend to have these kinds of statistics on hand at all times!
    Posted by: tonyc

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 22:48

    Is it really selfless? It certainly is an extreme example, but if you consciously decide to give your life to save someone else, isn't the other option always worse? Are we saving a loved one because of our love for that person, because of our principles ... or because we couldn't bear a life without this precious person (and a life of blaming ourselves)?
    I was going to make this exact point, but I was approaching quitting time at work (yes, you can tell what kind of work week I've had) and I didn't want to look so insensitive as to think that there is no good in the world without selfishness. I was willing to concede that one example as a selfless act, but in reality, deep down, there's selfishness in that, too. Just part of being human.
    Posted by: tonyc

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 22:49

    Ask the people who lived under Batista, and then revisit the question.
    You're only proving that Cuba is a better place to live than it was under Batista. You're not making any kind of case that it's a good place to live.
    Posted by: tonyc

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 23:04

    I don't think that necessarily follows (you seem to be equating Stalinism and Maoism with Communism):
    Hmm, well I've disclaimed my poor knowledge of history several times in this thread. I couldn't even tell you which of the current Communist states became so via democratic means, as you've stated there have been many of. All I've ever seen in my lifetime from Communist states is a dictator ruling with an iron fist.
    Posted by: genixia

    Re: All's Fair - 28/03/2003 23:12

    Though I don't tend to have these kinds of statistics on hand at all times!


    Nor do I....at *all* times. But those statistics were handily made available to me in last week's Business Week, "Tax Special" !!
    Posted by: canuckInOR

    Re: All's Fair - 29/03/2003 02:41

    All I've ever seen in my lifetime from Communist states is a dictator ruling with an iron fist.


    I think that may be why you're arguing so vociferously that Communism doesn't work. Communism, as it has been implemented on a national scale has never been a total success, and usually a complete failure. However, that doesn't mean that the theory or ideology behind it is flawed. Communism is socialism taken to extreme, and there are plenty of nations with socialistic leanings that show it has potential. Communism and Democracy are not mutually exclusive concepts. I think to see a successful Communist society, you need to look on a smaller scale -- the Hutterites, Shakers, monastaries/convents, etc. The difficulty in implementing Communism on a national scale isn't the leaders -- that's a seperate issue altogether -- but in uniting such a disparate group of people to work towards a common interest.
    Posted by: Anonymous

    Re: All's Fair - 29/03/2003 07:22

    The only environment that communism works in is one where the people truly care about eachother. Nobody really gives a damn after they work all day and then see their money go to somebody they've never met. Anyways, we all live in a communist environment for most our lives - we call it a family. Everyone does their part and everyone strives for the greater good of the whole family. Want an example of a sucessful commie state? Look at the american indian tribes. Everyone cared about eachother and each person made their own contribution to the tribe - hunters, warriors, chiefs, child-bearers, cooks, etc. Everyone gave what they could. But unlike in modern socialism, in an indian tribe they'd kick you out for being lazy. In socialist Europe, and correct me if I'm wrong, you get a big fat check for just sitting on your ass. Communism only works well in a close-knit community where everyone knows eachother and grew up with eachother. If the tribe got too big then it would inevitably break off into new, smaller tribes.

    So, no, I don't think communism could work on a large scale. The chinese are moving more and more towards capitalism, because they know they have to if they want to catch up to the US. Captalism is the only way. You get what you earn and then you can distribute your earnings to your family/tribe as you see fit. The indians were not communist by force from a ruling elite; they were communist by choice. In a capitalist society, we have the freedom to make that choice...

    All communists send a check and/or money order to:

    d33zY
    307 Corona Dr.
    Lafayette, LA 70503
    USA
    Posted by: Anonymous

    Re: All's Fair - 29/03/2003 07:34

    And back to the original topic, I agree with Laura that all's fair in war. The difference between the American Revolution and the elite Iraqi's & Al Qaeda defending from operation "Iraqi Freedom" is that we weren't cold blooded killers who would gas dissidents or put them in plastic shredders, and we weren't trying to wipe out an entire f*cking race of people who were alledgedly living in "infedelity". We were fighting for our freedom. Currently in Iraq, we are freeing the people from an oppressive regime, while getting rid of the threat to us at the same time.

    But yeah, all is fair. Let's nuke the whole middle east. Problem solved.
    Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

    Re: All's Fair - 29/03/2003 08:12

    In reply to:

    I think to see a successful Communist society, you need to look on a smaller scale




    I agree with you there. It can work - but only on a smaller scale.

    And... to get back on topic, YES all is fair in love and war (esp. when you're defending your homeland) excpect killing your own people. How can you say you're defending your nation when you're shooting it's people? But if China or Russia or the UN (just trying to think of forces large enough to occupy the US) invaded America you'd better expect a lot of creative ways to fight back.

    And I do think it is okay for the cololition forces to complain about it because they are spending so many millions of dollars more and putting our forces at greater risks to protect Iraqi civilians and assets yet they are still losing the "Public Relations" war.

    So when's 2.00 final coming out?
    Posted by: JeffS

    Re: All's Fair - 29/03/2003 09:14

    And... to get back on topic, YES all is fair in love and war (esp. when you're defending your homeland) excpect killing your own people.

    Why is killing your own people not "fair"? Not that I think it's right, but why should we expect anyone to fight a war in the "right" manner? The only way to enforce any rule/ law/ agreement is at gunpoint, and during war the guns are already pointed. I'll agree at least on this point with Laura: all's fair in war. Let's not make some sort of rule that we can't enforce and then decry the enemy for not obeying it. If he agreed with us about morality we'd not be at war in the first place.
    Posted by: wfaulk

    Re: All's Fair - 29/03/2003 10:41

    I couldn't even tell you which of the current Communist states became so via democratic means, as you've stated there have been many of.
    The current official Communist states are, IIRC, China, Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos. Not many left at all, huh? But you're still missing my point. All there have ever been (at least long-term) are Communist tyrannies (or, as someone else pointed out, socialist dictatorships that call themselves Communist, which is why I'm using a capital `C').

    But I think that part of that can be explained by the fact that the rest of the world that was opposed to Communism made sure that no Communist ever came to power. The only times they failed were when the Communists came to power in a coup of one nature or another. It's hard to foment revolution against another revolution.

    And, to be clear, the western world (I don't want to put the US in a bucket of it's own here, as it wasn't alone in these actions, although it played an important role) was opposed to the very existence of a Communist state, not to protect the citizens of that country, as pretty much every ruler that was put in power in place of a potentially Communist regime was awful, and they knew it at the time. (If you read memoirs and interviews of CIA people, et al., who put these people in power, you'll see the phrase ``We knew he was a thug at the time'', or something quite similar, a lot.)

    And, to defend my example of Cuba, I said at the beginning that there are significant human rights problems in Cuba that need to be solved. But the US has no interest in that. They refuse to recognize Cuba diplomatically, which is ridiculous; that government has been in power for, what, fifty years? Many people claim that Cuba's poverty is largely due to the embargoes that the US levies against it. I don't know that that's definitely the case, but it's not outside reason.

    My belief is that the US should agree to recognize Cuba, lift embargoes, and establish normal trade relations (assuming the couple of requirements that entails for any country) in exchange for Cuba cleaning up its human rights problems. Then again, the same sort of thing was set up with China, and their human rights problems are still significant, even if they are better.
    Posted by: jimhogan

    Re: All's Fair - 29/03/2003 14:11

    Hey, don't apologize to me. I come here to be enlightened, and occasionally evangelize my own viewpoints in the hopes that I cause others to think about something in a slightly different way.

    And that's the magic of this unusual BBS...

    (I should issue a standing apology for how I deal with some of these off-topic threads....I tend to "dump" some overly-long post, fail to do a great job responding to specific follow-ups, then come back and "dump" again. Oh, well, what can I say? I can't keep up! Went to the driving range, then book club last evening, and, Wow, this topic is now like 200 posts!)

    A week or so ago, the venerable Helen Thomas (late of UPI, now with Hearst) asked (my memory/paraphase) Ari Fliesher "So, what do you think of those in the administration who have suggested that we should 'keep going' to deal with/democratize other countries (like Iran, Syria)? " Ari said "Who in the administration?" Helen Thomas: "Richard Perle" Ari: "He's not in the administration. He's not paid/compensated by the government."

    So, Ari's response rested on what I would call a technicality.

    About that time, I listened to part of an installment of another KCRW program called "Left Right, and Center". Arianna Huffington, who I hadn't really heard much of before, seemed to do a pretty decent job of upholding the "Left" anti-war position. What was most interesting about that episode was the comment of a politico representative of "the Right" who (over a phone link) said something like "and now the anti-war movement is resorting to conspiracy theories, some of them with clear anti-semetic overtones".

    A while back in another thread , Jeff was nice enough to offer some insight into eschatological thinkings that answered some of my questions about relationships between US (evangelical) Christians, Israel and Middle East policy (and this war). I try not to get into a conspiratorial mindset on any of this, but, I have to say that, when I heard that commentator's remarks about "conspiracy theories....anti-semitic overtones" I was really steamed. It was, IMO, an attempt at the worst kind of demagoguery. Yes, there are clearly anti-semetic conspiracy theorists out there, but the case this guy was trying to put on the table was that if you are anti-war, anti-administration, and start asking questions about Richard Perle, Halliburton contracts, or our Israel/Palestine position, you must be dragging around a dog-eared copy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Like I said, I was pissed. I'm still pissed.

    I've tried to catch back up on this thread as best I can and am picking this spot to respond because I think your overall position is an interesting one. I haven't seen a position yet that is without some contradictions and yours is no exception. I think your position is more "trees" Saddam oriented, while others, including mine advance a more "forest" position. I'll try to expand on this and then you can maybe legitimately argue that I missing the point or that my forest/trees argument is incorrect

    (also, I earlier dropped the ball in responding to some of your responses, but, rather than go back over there and re-fork the Iraq threads, I'll to work them back in here as best I can).

    On some level, I think the war on Iraq began on November 8, 2000. On that day, in the realization of an ambiguous election result, George W. Bush's generals strapped on their armor, got on their horses and took no prisoners. Al Gore's generals changed into women's clothing and slipped away in the night. I sometimes wonder how events would have unfolded had the ballot in Palm Beach county been different. One can only guess, but I can't see what would have been different that would have prevented 9/11; I would also guess that a "Gore administration" would have undertaken a similar post-9/11 campaign in Afghanistan, but would likely have been more "wishy-washy" on things like incommunicado incarceration of people at Guantanamo. I don't think they would have invaded Iraq.

    Enough of alternative history. By the time the Supreme Court delivered their controversial decision on December 12, 2000, the Bush team had had plenty of time to plan staffing of the new administration. History will show this to have been one of the most polar, partisan executive branch transitions on the record. There was an element of vengeance to this: years of visceral hatred for Clinton were finally channeled into Republican power.

    George W. Bush is not patently stupid, but he's not extremely bright. Biographers already have shown, and will show in the future, that his dominant trait, from an intelligence standpoint, is incuriosity. Whatever W already knows is "good enough". In terms of intercourse with the media, Bush's administration if the most tightly-controlled and scripted that anyone can remember -- fewest press conference, very little ad lib interaction with the press, and highest proportion of speech-written content delivery. As many others have said, those words are carefully chosen and that a cigar can be more than a cigar. There is a deliberate aspect of "throwing our weight around" in the carefully-chosen wording and what I heard a BBC commentator describe as a "hectoring tone" that is increasingly unpopular with our erstwhile allies.

    Our actualized policy does not flow from the brain of W, but from the key members of his administration who were probably all identified by spring of 2000. Beyond Cheney, the political track records and thinking of Ashcroft, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle and others was well understood. With respect to our current situation, there is little that is unfair in describing it in one word: hawkish. Oh, make that two words: extremely hawkish. After 8 years of suffering Clinton in a state of rage, these folks are in the seats of power and "on a roll". Feeling their oats. Behaving arrogantly toward interests other than their own whether those are US foreign interests (as defined by them) or internal policies (environment, privacy).

    If mentioning the guiding role of these ideologues and the track record of people like Perle qualifies critics for the label of "conspiracy theorist" then the political discussion, more or less, ends right there. Some critics have been nailed for raising issues such as selection or rebuilding contractors in Iraq or for saying that the war was initiated to facilitate Halliburton gains. I think some of that quibbling diminishes other legitimate points and, while I don't view the invasion as based on money to be made, it is bloody convenient that Halliburton *will* make that money and that they wouldn't have made that money had we not invaded.

    Resignation notwithstanding, Perle and kin will remain guiding lights for this administration as will strategy documents written during the frustrating "wilderness years" of 1992-2000. Perle's 1996 realpolitik treatise on a A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm is, I think, a good example.

    I just finished a second reading of the Washington Monthly piece that CanuckinLA posted in another thread. With respect to hawk/neocon posture, I thought that overall it was a pretty effectively reasoned attempt to posit what the heck is going on. Sadly, it seemed pretty credible to me.

    From that piece there was a line "But that's what the hawks are setting in motion, partly on the theory that the worse things get, the more their approach becomes the only plausible solution." that really resonated. In some respects, it seems to describe (to me) the place we have been maneuvered to: Get congressional approvals for invasion with manufactured evidence? ... How can they later back down without accusations of being unpatriotic? Start the invasion? ...How can we then all not "Support Our Troops"? From all that I have read of your positions and posts, Tony, I come away with a feeling of this type of contradiction -- really mad at the way we started this, but pretty vocally supportive of it while underway. Maybe that's not legit, but it is the impression I've formed.

    Yikes, I have gone through a whole bunch of typing without mentioning Saddam, how bad he is, how bad and sneaky his supporters are, and how much nicer the world would be if he were gone. Oh, on some level I will just stipulate to bunch of those things, because they are not the main focus of my concern. "Operation Irqui Freedom" is tactics; my main concern is with the underpinnings and implications of our overall strategy as it relates to a list of things:

    - It's a big marble cake of a world, much of it from Stockton, California to Islamabad is Muslim.
    - To oversimply Lewis' "What went wrong?" book/essays, the Muslim world is suffering from one huge inferiority complex with respect to that world's very poor current position as compared to revered past glories.
    - This "complex" helps explain very conflicted opinions of both envy and moralistic disdain for the rich, sinful west.
    - Grievances have become so deeply ingrained as to be unreasonable (as in: it was the Mossad that planned 9/11) but remain pretty fixed.
    - A grossly unbalanced Israel-Palestine policy fuels grievances and conspiracy theories

    So, into this very precarious pot we throw an invasion of Iraq. Saddam, last week reviled by most of that Muslim world, *now* stands a chance of being rehabilitated -- whether dead or alive -- in that world as the brave leader who stood up to American Zionist Imperialism. The "coalition" touted by Rumsfeld is a joke -- support on a grudging, economic basis rather than any earnest, heartfelt support. To top it off, a 3-star corps commander on the ground in Iraq observes that this isn't really the war we planned for as the CNN KIA list passes the 50 mark and other generals back bite Starry-War-eyed dreamers like Rumsfeld for the inadequacies of "Rolling Start". Along the way we have managed (is this gratifying to the hawks?) to alienate much of both "east" *and* "west, throw a wrench in NATO, and injure the UN.

    Tactically, it looks like we've gotten into a bit of a pickle since Iraq's troops won't form ranks and allow us to mow them down and as of today (was this a surprise, people?) are even resorting to suicide car bombs. *Strategically*, I think our situation can be summed up by this Man-On-The-Street interview in Cairo:

    "I used to think the US is a just country...but not anymore".

    I've said it before, but part of the major contradictions I see rest on a conflict between short-term and long-term views, and between the Iraq picture and the bigger picture. Focusing on "but Saddam hit me first!" while in fact that whole table *is* (in the words of that Joshua Marshall) being rolled (and that Al Quaeda recruiting numbers are probably way, way up). If we just manage to get the 1st infantry there in time, we just may be able to subdue Iraq before the CNN KIA counter passes 200, but my biggest sense right now is that we can't predict what the casualty numbers for combatants and non-combatants will be.

    I am trying to think of some bookmark phrase I could put in this post so that I could come back in 3 months, 6 months, or 1 or 2 years to compare how current-day realties wound up comparing with past anxieties, but it is my opinion that we are going to be asking why we thought this was a good idea.

    I would think that I was a radical, conspiracy-theory left-winger if it weren't for the fact that so many experienced observers who I would consider established moderates echo the same concerns. Take for example the Middle East Editor, Christopher Dickey for Newsweek (not exactly a left-wing organ).

    In an earlier thread, I asked "...What would have been the negative consequences if we had delayed this 6 months....?" and you, Tony, responded "Turning the question around, why did it have to take 6-12 months for Saddam to fulfill his obligations under 1441?" That didn't really address my question. My question was about what *my* country should be doing. On this particular Saturday, I think we have probably made an historically big mistake.
    Posted by: jheathco

    Re: All's Fair - 29/03/2003 17:57

    That post should count as three in the stats
    Posted by: visuvius

    Re: All's Fair - 29/03/2003 18:37

    f*uck man. that was beautifully written. From a muslim's perspective, you're absolutely right on each of the points in your list.
    Posted by: bonzi

    Re: All's Fair - 30/03/2003 07:19

    <trailer>
    As one of very few members here from an ex-socialist country (Croatia), and as one near the leftmost end of political spectrum, despite being a kind or enterpreneur, I feel obliged to add some first-hand experience to the discussion. I will try that in the next several days (I am swamped with work again), but for the moment I will just say that we ended the experiment by decision of Parliament, which was not prompted by any kind of public unrest. As for religion, there existed political and peer pressure not to attend religious services, aproximately equal to the pressure to atend them that appeared after the change.

    Also, I will try to argument my opinion on all being or not being fair in war, having, regrettably, (almost) first-hand experience in that, too.
    </trailer>
    Posted by: jimhogan

    Re: All's Fair - 30/03/2003 09:06

    Andy: P.S. What is the point of having three Starbucks stores within several hundred metres of each other ?
    yn0t_: As Bitt casually alluded to, even Americans have no idea how to answer that one.


    No I think there is an answer for this, and there is a business-school term (not like I ever attended) for it that isn't coming to me, something like "Opportunity Denial". This is just a fancy way to say that you keep your competitor from opening in those locations by tying up the real estate. No matter that one of the 2-3 identical shops doesn't make money (or maybe even loses money for a while), so long as the aggregate of the stores is in the black. It's a good way to make sure that those evil independents don't get a foothold!!

    Oh, the whole issue of chain like Starbucks and Home Depots deserves its own thread! My only strong feelings on the subject are of ambivalence.
    Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

    Re: All's Fair - 30/03/2003 09:13

    Jim, how's anybody supposed to reply to that unless they have a free hour or two?

    A few points (that don't really address your general point):

    1. (not to speek for Tony, but) He expressed that he was against the administration's approach to conflict with Iraq. He never said he was against the war but now that it's going we have no choice to support it.

    2. I don't know why people keep saying that we are suffering heavy losses. Maybe in the video game era, 50 or so lost soldiers 10 days into a war is heavy losses, but do you have any idea how many people died EACH DAY in Vietnam? Hell, more people died in car accidents on American roads the first week of the war than soldiers in Iraq - either by accidents or enemy fire. Twice as many people died at that Great White concert.

    3. Suicide bombs and the like have never been effective against military targets. I really think that it's pointless to try to say the military is going to not accomplish their goals here. People said the same thing in Afghanistan - that we were not being effective and nothing was happening. Then 2 days later, we had control of every major city there. If you want to argue that we won't be successful politically or diplomatically with the Arab world or with Iraq, then that is another topic altogether.

    4. All of this is really empeg's fault! We've been promised that they'd take care of this for us.

    Other than that, I think your post was very well writen.
    Posted by: jimhogan

    Re: All's Fair - 30/03/2003 10:22

    Jim, how's anybody supposed to reply to that unless they have a free hour or two?

    Piece of cake! Just get laid off!

    A few points (that don't really address your general point):

    1. (not to speek for Tony, but) He expressed that he was against the administration's approach to conflict with Iraq. He never said he was against the war but now that it's going we have no choice to support it.


    And I don't want to speak for Tony and/or misrepresent him, either. I was just throwing my impressions out there. For *me* (and that's just me) being mad about the process that got us to war while ultimately being for this particular war once underway (if that's a fair summary) is a bit puzzling under the circumstances. I guess that's based on my sense that the only real process that counted was the administration's very early decision to invade Iraq. All of the UN stuff was just window dressing, as is the new "coalition". So, if you agree with the goal, why get upset about the perfunctory process (except that it was it was a chance for some countries like France and Russia to try to make us look bad)?

    I heard just a snip of a story from (this week's?) Time magazine (can't find it referenced on the Web) where W walks by a conference room sometime last year where Condoleeza Rice is meeting with staff. I guess W hears somebody mention Saddam and he sticks his head in the door and goes "Saddam? F*ck him! He's gone!" then continues down the hall.

    2. I don't know why people keep saying that we are suffering heavy losses. Maybe in the video game era, 50 or so lost soldiers 10 days into a war is heavy losses, but do you have any idea how many people died EACH DAY in Vietnam?
    Yeah.
    .... Twice as many people died at that Great White concert.

    And that was a sucky, avoidable thing, too.

    I don't *think* that I was one of the people who said "heavy" casualties, but if I implied it, that was not my exact intent. You're right. In a serious, full-on war where both sides meet head-on you could expect to see much bigger casualties. And if it was generally considered to be a "Good War"(tm), the country in question might just suck it up and say "well, that's too bad but it had to be be done" with a single voice.

    My point in citing current numbers of deaths is just to try to keep in mind that they are occurring and that they are different from the 2-day war that I think many Americans expected or that Americans may abide if this drags on and more citizens start questioning our plan or motives.

    Oh, and 50 isn't much, except as compared to zero, or unless you're the mom of dad of a MIA, knowing that chances are that they are death #51, and who just joined up to be a teacher.

    3. Suicide bombs and the like have never been effective against military targets. I really think that it's pointless to try to say the military is going to not accomplish their goals here.

    Suicide bombs are effective insofar as they will make it more likely that troops will kill more people who are perceived to be a threat but who might not have been. That may not get much press here, but it will certainly be on the loudspeakers and TV screens in the Middle East

    People said the same thing in Afghanistan - that we were not being effective and nothing was happening. Then 2 days later, we had control of every major city there.

    In the lull during the build up, I guess I remember people saying that nothing was happening, being pessimistic. Even allowing for, what 3000?, civilian deaths and failures to trap/pursue/kill OBL and others, there were aspects of that campaign that will be taught in war colleges as "good" textbook examples, but I think that parallels to the current situation are limited. In Afghanistan we had convenient proxy armies to work work with and no dense, highly built-up cities of 4.8 million people to subdue.

    Trust me, I am not certain about what it will take (how many troops, how many combatant casualties, how many civilian casualties, how much money) to capture all of the major cities and police and govern them until such time as democracy is declared or until we get tired and bail out.

    For caution, though, I'll say/ask again just how much of Afghanistan the new government of Afghanistan controls: Kabul.

    Some of the Iraqi expatriates who have been whispering in our ear "Invade! The people will welcome US troops!" for the past 10 years, well, they may not be Afghan warlords, but I think they clearly have their own political interests and are likely to be the ones sniping at US MPs in 2004.

    If you want to argue that we won't be successful politically or diplomatically with the Arab world or with Iraq, then that is another topic altogether.

    On the contrary, I think that, from a strategic standpoint the military and diplomatic are inextricably linked.

    4. All of this is really empeg's fault! We've been promised that they'd take care of this for us.

    Yes, if Iraqis just had Ogg support!!

    Other than that, I think your post was very well writen.

    Thanks. Well, I did volunteer to Mr. Fabris that if he wanted to change me from "veteran" to "interminable blowhard" I would take it with reasonable grace.

    I listened again to that 38-minute Christopher Dickey interview from Fresh Air and, if you or anyone can abide Real Audio or WMP9, I really have to give it another plug (I e-mailed FA and asked why they can't just have plain MPEGs or something...).

    Oh, and....

    Iraq Quote for the Day: "Be professional, be polite,...but have a plan to kill everyone you meet."

    - Marine Corps major in Iraq
    Posted by: jimhogan

    Re: All's Fair - 30/03/2003 10:50

    That post should count as three in the stats

    Sorry, man. Just trying to keep busy!!
    Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

    Re: All's Fair - 30/03/2003 11:36

    In reply to:

    I listened again to that 38-minute Christopher Dickey interview from Fresh Air


    I didn't see the original post... have link? Maybe I'll see if I can convert it to mp3.. would be fun to listen to on my empeg.

    In reply to:

    4. All of this is really empeg's fault! We've been promised that they'd take care of this for us.

    Yes, if Iraqis just had Ogg support!!


    No, I was replying to this comment by tfabris about software ver. 1.1 features (which was renamed 2.00 prior to its release): "- Solution for world peace, the end to disease and hunger, and the secret to immortality. (Oh, darn, that was the feature they didn't want us to leak. My bad.)"
    Posted by: wfaulk

    Re: All's Fair - 30/03/2003 11:44

    the Muslim world is suffering from one huge inferiority complex with respect to that world's very poor current position as compared to revered past glories
    I think that this puts a little too simplistic a point on it. In particular, I have objections with referring to it as an inferiority complex. I think it's more akin to frustration. The Arab world has a very distinct culture from the ``Western'' world, and I think that they have a hard time interspersing western culture into their own, at least a much harder time than Japan, Hong Kong, or Singapore, for instance. If that hard time comes from incompatibility, incapability, or unwillingness, I don't know, but it seems to exist nonetheless. Combine that with what seems to be an inability to deal with the ``western'' world (and, therefore, these days, the rest of the world) on anything but it's own terms (again, whether due to incompatibility or unwillingness on either party's part), and I think you find a culture that becomes more and more isolated, with one hand wanting to deal with the rest of the world, and the other busy slapping it away because it's been burned so many times already.

    I've posted it before, but you may not have seen it: Newsweek ran quite a long article on ``Why Do They Hate Us'', by Fareed Zakaria, that I think has a reasonable explanation for that, which I've tried to paraphrase above.
    Posted by: jimhogan

    Re: All's Fair - 30/03/2003 11:59

    I didn't see the original post... have link?

    Yep, that'd be this one raht heah, pardner.

    No, I was replying to this comment by tfabris about software ver. 1.1 features

    Yes, I remembered that. I just hope for everyone's sake that Ogg support is higher on the list than World Peace. Less likely to be buggy!
    Posted by: jimhogan

    Re: All's Fair - 30/03/2003 12:39

    I think that this puts a little too simplistic a point on it. In particular, I have objections with referring to it as an inferiority complex.

    Even with my qualification that I *was* oversimplifying, I had reservations about using that term (but I was trying to stay under 3000 words). So, I accept your objection. When I typed it, I figured we'd get to talk about it.

    I think it's more akin to frustration. The Arab world has a very distinct culture from the ``Western'' world, and I think that they have a hard time interspersing western culture into their own, at least a much harder time than Japan, Hong Kong, or Singapore, for instance. If that hard time comes from incompatibility, incapability, or unwillingness, I don't know, but it seems to exist nonetheless. Combine that with what seems to be an inability to deal with the ``western'' world (and, therefore, these days, the rest of the world) on anything but it's own terms (again, whether due to incompatibility or unwillingness on either party's part), and I think you find a culture that becomes more and more isolated, with one hand wanting to deal with the rest of the world, and the other busy slapping it away because it's been burned so many times already.

    I've posted it before, but you may not have seen it: Newsweek ran quite a long article on ``Why Do They Hate Us'', by Fareed Zakaria, that I think has a reasonable explanation for that, which I've tried to paraphrase above.


    I read that when you posted it earlier and agree that it was a good analysis. Also not too divergent, I don't think, from much of what Lewis had to say in his book (essays entitled "The Roots of Muslim Rage" that went into the book are on-line here ).

    When Lewis fleshed those essays out, though, into his small book, he took a more provocative stance and title ("What Went Wrong?") and spent more time dwelling on the question of why the Muslim world -- once the pinnacle of science, economy, etc. -- fell behind in many areas. I'm going to have to re-read it, because in part I almost get the creeps talking/posting about it when I fear misinterpreting him or lapsing into near-racist generalization. My take-home, though, was that there are a lot of Muslims experiencing conflicting feelings of correctness/rightness (and I guess state-aligned religion in a place like Saudi Arabia is one expression of that) along with insecurity and dependency (dependence on foreign workers in Saudi being another example of an ambivalence "need but resent" phenomenon) and frustration.

    Leaving aside political constructs like the Saudi royal family and focusing more on a "man-in-the-street" view (oh, like I'm an expert or have ever been there) -- the guy who said he used to think the US was a just nation for example -- the term that I see applied in analyses is "humilation". On the street, people have been successively humiliated by Ottomans, by European imperial powers (England, France), by Israel (several wars) and by their own corrupt leaders. If "inferiority complex" is not a legitimate handle, I would say that the combination of frustrations and humiiations are not likely to improve collective self-esteem. Where do very broadly held "The Mossad was behind 9/11" delusions gestate?

    Anyhow, into all of this, we righteous Crusaders of the US of A march into Iraq. And "humiliating" is again heard from more than one acute reporter, ambassador, and by other seemingly thoughtful, sympathetic observers. This rings true to me. I have to ask, is this what the administration is aiming for?
    Posted by: rob

    Re: All's Fair - 30/03/2003 13:46

    I just hope for everyone's sake that Ogg support is higher on the list than World Peace. Less likely to be buggy!

    World Peace has been in alpha for several weeks - not one of our greatest success stories. If only we had open sourced it.
    Posted by: jimhogan

    Re: All's Fair - 30/03/2003 17:24

    Brad, in a little footnote on the casualties issue, I just now saw this report of a poll.

    An excerpt: "While 59 percent respondents say they would support a war in which 500 U.S. troops died, support falls to just 47 percent and opposition to the war rises to 41 percent if the U.S. death toll rises to 1,000.'

    Just one poll, but an interesting suggestion of what support for the war hinges on.
    Posted by: jimhogan

    Re: All's Fair - 30/03/2003 17:27

    World Peace has been in alpha for several weeks - not one of our greatest success stories. If only we had open sourced it.

    What? *Peer-reviewed* World Peace???
    Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

    Re: All's Fair - 30/03/2003 19:10

    I'm SO tempted to reply like this. hehe
    Posted by: jimhogan

    Re: All's Fair - 30/03/2003 19:39

    I'm SO tempted to reply like this. hehe

    Phluccccch! (man, how do I get this piece of Jarlsberg out of my sinus?)

    Brad, no fair posting (I'M NOT WORTHY!) Onion links while I'm innocently eating crackers and cheese. I was behind on my (I'M NOT WORTHY!) Onion. I also really like the "Missile Command" (looks like Missile Command, anyway) graphic on that issue's front page.

    There was a certain element of self-mockery about that "In 10 or 15 years, we will look back fondly on the days when there were only a few thousand Middle Easterners dedicated to destroying the U.S." that made me wonder where they were going until I hit <PgDn>.

    I also really liked "Sheryl Crow Unsuccessful; War On Iraq Begins"
    Posted by: SE_Sport_Driver

    Re: All's Fair - 30/03/2003 20:05

    Did you notice how "Previous Issue" is all articles that are WAY old?
    Posted by: jimhogan

    Re: All's Fair - 31/03/2003 08:14

    Did you notice how "Previous Issue" is all articles that are WAY old?

    Yeah, I wondered if I hadn't seen the "Hammurderer" before.... maybe the got tied up in Madison peace marches and had to cover their bases with old material...

    ....I didn't renew my paper subscription this year, so I can't know whether they skipped one or what. Odd.
    Posted by: tonyc

    Re: All's Fair - 31/03/2003 14:00

    And I don't want to speak for Tony and/or misrepresent him, either. I was just throwing my impressions out there. For *me* (and that's just me) being mad about the process that got us to war while ultimately being for this particular war once underway (if that's a fair summary) is a bit puzzling under the circumstances.
    I understand your confusion. And yes, my view is more "trees" than "forest." Whatever got us into this, we're now in it, and we need to accomplish our objectives. Once it's done, there will be plenty of time to worry about which particular set of Arabs now hates us even more than they did previously.

    Your mammoth post from a few days ago paints a very good picture of all of the ulterior motives and right-wing shadiness that has put us where we are now. I don't disagree with any of your conclusions, and I share many of your fears about the future, and how we'll look back on this war. I just don't see the point of wallowing in a fatalist view of things to come. With so much on the line right now, I am doing my best to see ways to turn this into a net gain.

    Or maybe I'm just really, really naive.


    Posted by: jimhogan

    Re: All's Fair - 31/03/2003 22:06

    Thanks, Tony,

    Your mammoth post....

    Yeah, I'm angling at getting some writing work on a piece-rate basis!

    and I share many of your fears about the future, and how we'll look back on this war. I just don't see the point of wallowing in a fatalist view of things to come. With so much on the line right now, I am doing my best to see ways to turn this into a net gain.

    Much of my mammoth posting is just "thinking out load" -- trying to figure out what I think. I don't want to wallow, really, but this situation is, IMO, about as big a clusterf*ck as I can imagine, so I feel the need to thrash around a bit, see if I can pop any wishful-thinking balloons I have left.

    Net gain? I don't see that happening. What I am wondering a lot about - wallowing over a bit - is how we as a country can manage some serious damage mitigation. I have the feeling that will have to involve 2 things: 1) Europe and 2) a (US) regime change (like some new President drop-kicks the Rumsfelds, then flies around on Air Force One in 2005 and says "Hey, that last guy was nuts. Can't we all just get along?")

    The chances of this last happening? Not very good, I'm afraid, but I'm going to think a bit about what Democrat (Ewwww!) I could vote for.
    Posted by: bonzi

    Re: All's Fair - 01/04/2003 12:59

    I am doing my best to see ways to turn this into a net gain.

    I am affraid it is too late for any gain, my friend, except perhaps for Halliburton and their ilk. And this is the price.
    Posted by: Saddam_Hussein

    Re: All's Fair - 01/04/2003 13:51

    Yikes, I have gone through a whole bunch of typing without mentioning Saddam, how bad he is, how bad and sneaky his supporters are, and how much nicer the world would be if he were gone.


    Hey! Now that's just not fair at all. I'm not such a bad guy if you get to know me. I have feelings too you know.

    -SH
    Posted by: Daria

    Re: All's Fair - 01/04/2003 13:54

    Yeah yeah, look what happened with Chris when Satan wouldn't get back with you...
    Posted by: genixia

    Re: All's Fair - 01/04/2003 14:01

    I have feelings too you know.

    Not for long.
    Posted by: Saddam_Hussein

    Re: All's Fair - 01/04/2003 14:15

    when Satan wouldn't get back with you...


    Yeah Satan, come on guy, why wont you return my calls?

    I love you...

    -SH
    Posted by: jimhogan

    Re: All's Fair - 01/04/2003 14:46

    Yikes, I have gone through a whole bunch of typing without mentioning Saddam, how bad he is ....

    Hey! Now that's just not fair at all. I'm not such a bad guy if you get to know me. I have feelings too you know


    Alright, you forced my hand. You SUCK! You REALLY SUCK!!

    ....but if you think you are going to suck me in to chasing you around this BBS reminding you that you suck, you can forget it! Ain't gonna happen. I'm too smart for that! I got better things to do!!
    Posted by: jimhogan

    Re: All's Fair - 01/04/2003 14:47

    Yeah Satan, come on guy, why wont you return my calls?

    Well, how about maybe even in Satan's eyes, YOU SUCK!
    Posted by: jimhogan

    Lucky Girl! - 01/04/2003 18:06

    I earlier in this phrase "or unless you're the mom of dad of a MIA" linked to a sad story about a MIA girl from West Virginia. NPR a bit ago reported a prisoner rescue, and 3 minutes ago mentioned that it is her.

    I wonder what the chances are that she'll re-up???

    Jessica, go be a teacher. Live a long and happy life.
    Posted by: Laura

    Re: All's Fair - 01/04/2003 18:20

    I noticed in your profile that you like quilting. Maybe someday we can share quilting tips
    Posted by: DonnyR

    Re: All's Fair - 01/04/2003 20:55

    Maybe someday we can share quilting tips.

    Ms. Laura. Laura, is that correct?

    Well, I wouldn't get your hopes up. I have it on good authority from Tomm....several friends that Saddam's DSL connection and other Internet infrastructure have been significantly degraded. Iraqi forces are barely achieving 28.8 and are having serious DNS difficulties. I'm not sure you'll be hearing anything further about quilting from Mr. Hussein. In fact, I suspect that these BBS posts don't really come from Saddam at all and that he is in fact dead. Yes, dead. Who KNOWS when these posts were actually typed?
    Posted by: Saddam_Hussein

    Re: All's Fair - 01/04/2003 23:12

    Who KNOWS when these posts were actually typed?


    You guys are so funny! Of course these posts come from me...see look, I'll hold up today's paper That proves it right?

    -SH

    p.s. Laura, I would love to share some quilting tips with you. As soon as I can get my "little situation" at home figured out. Call my cell!
    Posted by: Laura

    Re: All's Fair - 02/04/2003 05:55

    Call my cell!


    I'll try giving you a ring once the smoke clears a bit over there, bad for reception you know.
    Posted by: blitz

    Re: All's Fair - 02/04/2003 07:24

    As soon as I can get my "little situation" at home figured out.

    I could never figure out why you didn't just take your $6 Billion and run. Pretty soon you're going to be worth $4.50. Can you clue us in?
    Posted by: DonnyR

    Re: All's Fair - 02/04/2003 10:09

    I'll try giving you a ring once the smoke clears a bit over there

    Ms. Laura,

    What a remarkable coincidence. Remarkable. I have always enjoyed quilting during the off hours. I thought I would call Sad to arrange a small get together, but I seem to have misplaced his cell number. You wouldn't happen to have it on you, would you?

    (I still think he's dead.)

    Thanks a bunch,

    Donny
    Posted by: bonzi

    Re: All's Fair - 03/04/2003 03:23

    ...but I'm going to think a bit about what democrat (Ewwww!) I could vote for.

    My favorite US presidential candidate's statement on GWII.
    Posted by: blitz

    Re: All's Fair - 03/04/2003 07:50

    My favorite US presidential candidate's statement on GWII.

    With rhetoric like that, he is unelectable. I don't understand why "He has been recognized of his advocacy of human rights in Burma, Nigeria and East Timor". Why is Iraq not on his list?

    More stuff from his web site:

    He not only believes in sustainability, he practices it. Congressman Kucinich is one of the few vegans in Congress, a dietary decision he credits not only with improving his health, but in deepening his belief in the sacredness of all species.
    Posted by: bonzi

    Re: All's Fair - 03/04/2003 08:13

    With rhetoric like that, he is unelectable. I don't understand why "He has been recognized of his advocacy of human rights in Burma, Nigeria and East Timor". Why is Iraq not on his list?

    I know he is unelectable, but what exactly is wrong with that particular statement? I think that idea of lobbing the hot potato back into UN hands is close to brilliant. As for human rights abusers, competition is really tough; I agree with Mr. Kucinic that Saddam Hussein, however hard he tries, hardly makes top five .

    More stuff from his web site:
    He not only believes in sustainability, he practices it. Congressman Kucinich is one of the few vegans in Congress, a dietary decision he credits not only with improving his health, but in deepening his belief in the sacredness of all species.


    Ahem. That would explain why he looks so pale. Sustainability really has nothing to do with veganism.

    However, I have an impression that Kucinic believes what he preaches (which, of course, by itself does not tell that much about his suitability for president). Even his much publicised 'conversion' from 'pro-life' to 'pro-choice' is believable: he realized that 'pro-lifers' are merely 'anti-choice'; they routinelly oppose all measures that would actually lower the number of abortions (like sex education or distribution of free condoms). But that is really off this topic.
    Posted by: blitz

    Re: All's Fair - 03/04/2003 08:33

    I agree with Mr. Kucinic that Saddam Hussein, however hard he tries, hardly makes top five

    More stuff from his web site:

    Congressman Kucinich strongly supports efforts to prevent violence at all levels - including animal abuse. Research confirms a strong correlation between animal cruelty and violence against humans. Studies show that violent offenders frequently have childhood and adolescent histories of serious and repeated animal abuse. It has also been found that animal cruelty often occurs in households experiencing family violence - child abuse, spousal abuse and elder abuse.

    I wonder if Hussein abused animals as a child. Probably "Saddamized" 'em.

    Kucinich has sponsored legislation concerning the sale of dog and cat fur and references that it is impossible for consumers to distinguish dyed dog and cat fur from wolf, fox and mink. I bet the dogs and cats are happy about that but you got to wonder how the wolves, foxes and minks feel about it.
    Posted by: genixia

    Re: All's Fair - 03/04/2003 10:34

    Saddam, don't forget those warnings about not leaving your empeg in your car. Although I doubt that it's thieves that you need to worry about.

    BTW, I've put together a playlist that you might enjoy;

    If You (Michael Gira)
    Lie To Me (Depeche Mode)
    One More Time, (Daft Punk)
    It's Over. (Level 42).
    No More Tears (Enough Is Enough) (Jocelyn Brown)
    Go Into Exile (Missing Foundations)
    or There Will Be A Reckoning (Waxwing)
    with No Surrender. (Bruce Springsteen)
    Beware Of Those (JT the Bigga Figga and Mac Hall)
    Cruise Missiles (Fischer-Z)
    and Tanks Rolling Into Town. (Howe Gelb)
    War Is Coming, (Six Feet Under)
    Destruction (Little Richard)
    ...Of Your (Monkees)
    Old Regime. (Steely Dan)
    Feel The Pain; (Damned)
    We Bring The Heat (Crooked)
    We Bring The Shake (Motorhead)
    We Bring The Noise (Scooter)
    We Bring Tha (Mr. Real)
    B.O.B. (Bombs Over Baghdad) (Outkast)
    You Are (Dolly Parton)
    the Scum Of The Earth (Kinks)
    Save The Planet, Kill Yourself (Chris Korda)

    Have A Nice Day (Bing Crosby)

    Note To Self: (Divine Comedy)
    Must Bring Own Weapon (Playing Enemy)

    Posted by: tonyc

    Re: All's Fair - 03/04/2003 11:46

    Man, how could you forget "B.O.B." (Bombs Over Baghdad) by Outkast. A must on any Saddam playlist!
    Posted by: genixia

    Re: All's Fair - 03/04/2003 11:53

    An oversight, corrected now.
    Posted by: tonyc

    Re: All's Fair - 03/04/2003 11:55

    Nice. Though I hear that electricity is out in Baghdad now, so maybe Saddam is going to have trouble logging into the BBS...
    Posted by: Saddam_Hussein

    Re: All's Fair - 03/04/2003 12:02

    I've put together a playlist that you might enjoy


    Damn! I thought I had a lot of time on my hands! Thank you so much for the thoughtful playlist. I will be sure to check out the Outkast song, I'm sure it will bring back lots of old memories.

    -SH

    p.s. Don't believe everything that you hear on the "news"
    Posted by: tonyc

    Re: All's Fair - 03/04/2003 21:41

    I will be sure to check out the Outkast song, I'm sure it will bring back lots of old memories.

    Speaking of old memories, you've been exposed! You're really dead, aren't you?
    Posted by: jimhogan

    Re: All's Fair - 05/04/2003 11:50

    With rhetoric like that, he is unelectable.

    I don't think I can disagree with you there. OTOH, I am guessing that many more Democrats with much blander rhetoric are unelectable, too!!

    It wil be interesting to see what happens. Polls cited on the networks show support for the war (and maybe Bush, too) among US voters currently at 70%. Sure, I wonder how they are asking the question and who they are asking, but it is somehow believable on a "support our troops" basis. Everybody loves a winner. If, by this point, US tanks can drive around Baghdad, and if the US can prop up some military-sponsored interim government and the death rate among occupying troops subsides to a lower level, Democrats including Kucinich are facing a fait accompli. How do you run on an anti-war platform when the war is "over" (I put this in quotes just to indicate my skepticism of a narrow definition of "over").

    What would be interesting to see is whether somebody like Kucinich, having failed to get the nomination, stands with whatever centrist, no-so-antiwar candidate the Democrats cook up. It's kind of sick, but I think the Democrats' only hope is if something around Iraq gets much worse in the next year and that 70 percent figure drops to 35 percent.

    One small tangent off of Kucinich and his other positions and lifestyle is my own sometimes paralysis when it comes to political demonstrations. When looking at past WTO demonstrations and some but not all of recent anti-war protests, I feel like there's a whole melange of political viewpoints mixed up in there....fundamental pacifism along with other overlaid themes like animal rights. I looked at one march a week ago and tried to envision myself -- not a pacifist and a dyed-in-the-wool carnivore -- marching with the crowd. Oh, I guess I'm not a joiner anyhow! ...and to be fair, what I have seen of anti-war demos have tended to be pretty on message...fewer folks trying to leverage the situation for their own groups. End tangent. Time to catch a plane to "Oakland".
    Posted by: genixia

    Re: All's Fair - 05/04/2003 12:23

    Along those lines;

    John Kerry stirred up quite a fuss this past week with his comments that "the US needs a Regime change".

    Leaving debate about that statement aside for now, what I found disgusting was the CNN anchors vitrolic attitude towards him, suggesting that he was being unpatriotic for attacking the current Administration in a time of war. What next? It's unpatriotic to vote for a non-encumbent during a time of war?
    The fact is that this Administration did go to war against the wishes of many US citizens. Kerry has got primaries coming up in under a year, and the Administration keeps telling us that the war is going to take a while. Is he supposed to wait until the last month before making his points? Or just until Baghdad has fallen, all the victorious flag waving is happening and all the happy Iraqi citizens are smiling at the cameras, justifying the Administrations position?

    Politics suck. War sucks. But they should suck separately.
    Posted by: blitz

    Re: All's Fair - 07/04/2003 08:33

    Politics suck. War sucks. But they should suck separately.

    "War is not an independent phenomenon, but the continuation of politics by different means."
    - Carl von Clausewitz

    I just finished reading "The Crisis of Islam" and was somewhat suprised. A quick read (one night) but interesting. At first I thought it was going to excuse the terrorists but it really just describes how we are where we are today in the Middle East.
    Posted by: genixia

    Re: All's Fair - 07/04/2003 09:05

    "War is not an independent phenomenon, but the continuation of politics by different means."
    - Carl von Clausewitz


    So it's true? The shrubs do use war as a means of re-relection?
    Posted by: tonyc

    Re: All's Fair - 07/04/2003 09:17

    So it's true? The shrubs do use war as a means of re-relection?
    Oh, yeah, this was an obvious re-election ploy. This war has been so popular, it's quite clear that Bush will be re-elected in '04. Why bother having a cannon-fodder Democrat spend all that money on a campaign? Let's just annoint Bush for a second term now, and avoid the hassle. Since this war has been so universally embraced by the voting public. And oh yeah, it worked so well for his father...

    One can make many cases for different reasons for getting involved in this war, some of them not so noble.. But re-election? That's rich.
    Posted by: blitz

    Re: All's Fair - 07/04/2003 09:51

    The shrubs do use war as a means of re-relection?

    The short answer is no. That being said, in a democracy, the decision to go to war is profoundly political. Everything regarding a democratic government is political. That is the nature of the process and healthy.

    Rather that just the famous quote, you could read an explanation of what Clausewitz meant.

    Here are some other quotes from Clausewitz.