I am confused (my questions about the war)

First nation to try using gas against the Kurds? That would be us, the British, under Winston Churchill.

Weird, eh?

Different Presidents have different priorities. If Bush was in power from 1979-2000, I would agree with you - but he wasn't.
<strong> Saddam was innocent, but he is proving himself guilty. Even Hans Blix believes that.
<strong> We're always looking for the next Ataturk, but none of these people have panned out. Instead, they just repress their people. I still think we're going to get changes in Saudi Arabia after Iraq falls.

My friend, the word is hypocrisy. The USA creates the monsters and as long they do as they are told, all is good. But as soon as the USA is remotely threatened by them, then oh no the world must act.

The World is falling to bits, and all Bush and Blair can focus on is Iraq, which in my book is no real threat.

In the UK, our health, transport, education and emergency services are falling to bits. People are dying because they cant get medical treatment, last night the weather stopped people from getting home because our transport system is falling to bits. It took my PA 6 hours to drive less than 2 Miles!!! And all Mr Blair can think of is being Geroge Bush's Lapdog, pushing us into a war which will be counterproductive at every level. Understand that we have no legal or moral highground to go to war with Iraq, and as for "premptive strikes" and "regime change" well, I just wait for the day when these very arguements are used against the UK and USA.

Oh well, I guess I can rant and rave, as can we all, but nothing is gonna change. The fuckers that lead the US and UK will have their way, and whether you are pro war or not, it will be the ordinary guy in the streets of Iraq, US and Europe who will foot the bill.

For sure, they didnt care re Human rights. Human Rights are only an issue when they can be used to win an arguement or support. A very good example is the treatment of Palestinians by the Israeli Government supported (on ab out 101 different levels) by the US. Nothing is done about their human rights, but Iraq has to be a priority because they now abuses human rights without the support/sanction of the west.

What about the rights of the Israelis? Hmm? Haven't the Palestinians violated them countless times?

What about the rights of Palestinian citizens? Hasn't the PA violated those rights countless times, too?

[quote]mastronikolas the butcher:
I think that Reagan did, but he was far more concerned about the Cold War (as he should have been), and it didn't get much attention (from Reagan). GHWB was just trying to keep his head above water. He did try and do some things, but he was very selective.

The administrations might have a lot of the same people, but they do have their differences. Just look at Condoleeza Rice v. Brent Scowcroft. Scowcroft was her direct boss and mentor, yet she has much different views than he does.

And Bush cares much more about people (around the world) than his dad did, hence the shift. The people may be the same, but the President makes the politics.

To be perfectly honest, I no longer know where I stand on a lot of this stuff.

I don't like Bush, but most of it comes from the fact that he's a spoiled rich kid, judgmentally religious, a former coke-head, and via many accounts of very average intellectual capacity. His rise in politics stinks of the privileges of the elite, with which they can only rise up once the more apt have been oppressed. Ahem, moving on.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those people still pissed about Gore not winning because he was also a jackass.

I know my country does hideous things behind my back. I can't hear behind closed doors, so I don't know what their inner dialog is telling them. I don't know if it's about freedom, or if it is truly only about power. It could still mean power for the elite, but end up providing more freedom in the end for all. Whatever brings peace AND freedom. Fuck it, put freedom first. I'd rather die free, and that's saying a lot, because I don't think there is anything after this.

However, the world is in a chaotic time, and maybe crushing these fanatical states will actually bring peace to us, the little people, before time brings about revolutions of their own. If those revolutions could even happen in those states.

Personally, I abhor all the people that come to this country from more oppressive states and then start complaining about America. On both sides of my family my people have been here since before the revolution. Responsible for freedom in some sense. Why the fuck do we have to let people in this country who are being oppressed in South America. Give them a gun and send them home. Overthrow that shit and set up shop. You run away from a fight I don't owe you shit.

Of course, I used to work at a Latin American run company, and had to listen to these guys go off constantly about big-bad-evil America, but one bad word about Chile, or anywhere else and they would have your ass slung up in Human Resources getting chewed out for insensitivity before you can say "bullshit." By the same token, there were too many instances of Latinos calling Latinos on their own shit around the office, especially during the Elian Gonzalez thing, which we as a satellite corporation were knee deep in.

To sum up, I don't know if we'll know the full story of "The Free World's" motivations until after the dust settles. One thing is for certain, the current administration is out to change international politics completely. I honestly think it impossible to foresee how all this is going to pan out.

When was the last time anybody staged a successful revolution anyway? I don't think the sexual one counts...

i guess that rules out arafat being a terrorist.

Back to Reagan for a sec, I just learned this in my class:

In 1991, Reagan came and did a forum at BYU. He solicited questions afterwards, and an IR student asked him what he thought about his administration's policy toward Iraq. Reagan replied thusly:

"That was a terrible move. We never should have [helped the Iraqis]."

He did see his mistake, but it was just a little too late (well, a lot too late). I think it was another piece of Ataturk syndrome that led us to help him out.

Continue on with the prior discussion.

Isnt it possible that Reagan was just saying that because it was the smart thing to say at the time? You think he would honestly say "Oh yeah, Saddam's a great guy...we loved helping him". I cant believe what some people will take seriously...

Great post Nick thanks for sharing.

Oh god, you damn well know that "hypocrisy" is the answer to every single one of those questions. You're not fooling anybody.

"Personally, I abhor all the people that come to this country from more oppressive states and then start complaining about America."

Well thats your problem, they are just doing what they should be doing, holding America to the highest standard.

"On both sides of my family my people have been here since before the revolution. Responsible for freedom in some sense."

Yeah, and probably also genocide, whats your point? My family is from Hungary....does it make a difference? Are you more American than I am?

"Why the fuck do we have to let people in this country who are being oppressed in South America. Give them a gun and send them home. Overthrow that shit and set up shop. You run away from a fight I don't owe you shit."

So maybe the Indians shouldnt have let the Pilgrims in...remember they were running away as well. Or maybe its possible that those people come here because America gives the hope. Because America is supposed to be different.

"Of course, I used to work at a Latin American run company, and had to listen to these guys go off constantly about big-bad-evil America"

Yeah, I mean those guys shouldnt complain about all the crap we caused for them during the Cold War Era...

"but one bad word about Chile, or anywhere else and they would have your ass slung up in Human Resources getting chewed out for insensitivity before you can say "bullshit."

So there assholes too, isn't anybody?

"By the same token, there were too many instances of Latinos calling Latinos on their own shit around the office, especially during the Elian Gonzalez thing, which we as a satellite corporation were knee deep in."

Ok.

"To sum up, I don't know if we'll know the full story of "The Free World's" motivations until after the dust settles. One thing is for certain, the current administration is out to change international politics completely. I honestly think it impossible to foresee how all this is going to pan out."

So your point is?

"When was the last time anybody staged a successful revolution anyway? I don't think the sexual one counts..."

Again, your point is?

I wish I knew. Basically what I was getting at is that this administration is taking a much bolder stance with the rest of the world. Bush seems to almost relish the opportunity to wield the power of the free world, whereas previous admins seemed less likely to go looking for trouble.

No, I don't think the indians should have let the pilgrims in, but they did, a long time ago. It's over now, let's deal with it. However, all the land is divided up over here now and by people with guns mostly so I think it's as good a time as any to put a lock on it. But fuck me, because I'd rather live in Canada.

The cold war thing is hardly an argument because we both know that responsibility is a bitch.

My point is we're all full of hot air over here if we think we know what the government's "plan" is.

I don't think the Indians had much say in the matter.

"The Free World" isn't something I would translate literally. He's in charge of the Industrial Military Complex that protects the people who have more access to freedom than anyone else.

I don't either, what with smallpox and guns whatnot.

The big problem with arguments involving opinions on immgration is that you really can't bring up things that happened before the whole planet was colonized and be serious. Unless you seriously think that we should just let everyone run willy-nilly around the world. That would be a hoot, for sure, but until we resolve to some extent the hate-me-because-I'm-different issue I don't see that as being safe.

I know it goes against the whole "idea" of what this country was founded on to want to drastically limit the number of people who can come here and become a citizen, but I see it as a positive thing and a sign of times we live in.