The benefit...

[Ram]

As one of the pacifists who opposes war, and who still thinks the
thousands of civilians being killed and terrified was a high price to
pay (though the real judgement on this belong to the people who
suffered the most, since they are the ones who can balance it against
what existed before), I am indeed happy that the Iraqis are
celebrating their freedom. As I've repeatedly said on this and other
forums, I do hope it all works out for them. I hope they become a
self-sufficient and happy region that can rival any other region in
the world.

That said, I am curious as to why Hussein was supported earlier by the
West (not just the U.S. administration), why the Shah of Iran was
installed by the CIA, and why we continue to support oppression
worldwide and among our own populace. Why doesn't the Administration
learn a lesson from all this? The most recent examples of failure to
learn is in the support of Pakistan's dictator.

What has happened in the past is water under the bridge, but governments don't
seem to learn from them.

Tibet is indeed a good example. While I would not advocate any use of
violence to free Tibet or many other countries in the world, I see no
reason why we should shake hands with other dictators or support their
actions (economically, politically, etc.). So I agree, Tibet should
be the next target (the people of Tibet have been oppressed as much as
the Iraqi people have, based on my experiences in Tibet and my reading
of how Iraqi people were oppressed).

As far as pacifism goes, Orwell was wrong about this. Gandhi and MLK
Jr. achieved their goals of freeing millions of people from
oppression through an uncompromising philosophy of "turning the other
cheek". Pacifism doesn't mean passivity. I think pacifism is the
most courageous form of resistance.

Anyways, my former mentor once said "it's easier to break things than
to put them together" (this is actually a deep comment about entropy
and the 2nd law of thermodynamics). But I do hope in this case the
Administration is able to put back Iraq together to rival or exceed
the region we live in, better than what they're doing in Afghanistan.
Time will tell.

[Mike S]

Its simple RAM. Tibet is occupied and brutalized by a nuclear power China. Now we have North Korea.. another country terrorizing its citizens.. too bad we cant do the same for them due their having WMD.. Aren't you glad we decided not to buy into the cynical brain damage that says "we made em guess we should live with em" and did the right thing. Aren't you glad that our proper use of force sent a message to Saddam wannabe's every where that the days of treating people like swine and beating them with rubber hoses is over.. huh.. aren't ya.. or are you seriously going to sit there and re-hash decontextualized history as a means to perpetuate your wrong headed cynical world view & make yourself feel self righteous when chances are you been proven dead wrong about this war.. And .. most importantly..that your non-violent approach to the world would have perpetuated never ending violence on the Iraqi people (making you complicit in the violence by the way)

And I'm going to commit the ultimate sin by pissing on the Ghandi myth. Ghandi was an authoritarian.
How is this you say!!
He made people do things through coercion.. not choices through free will.
See there's the common understanding of authoritarian which says they will get you to do what they want via coercion - threat of violence to you... Ghandi did the same thing .. only instead of threatening violence on others he threatened to or did actually commit it on himself as a means to coerce people. (starving ones self is certainly an act of violence..is it not)
And yet you call him non violent. hah.. thats kinda funny.

Regarding philosophies and politics.. every one acknowledges the point at which they all intersect (with reason and understanding) as being the point of moderation.. at their lunatic fringe they intersect as well. Most people don't or refuse to acknowledge this.


Non violence is great RAM but only when its accompanied by free will not coercion. Now.. while you're sitting there lamenting our violence in Iraq.. I'm gong to celebrate the re-birth of Iraqi free-will.

Sorry to be snappy RAM but I find that most people who get on the preachy high horse you've hopped up on do so more out of a sense of arrogant, nihilistic self righteousness. If I'm wrong my apologies.. if I'm not.. then..

cheers
MS

[Mike S]

Off topic but regarding MLK.. if you want to hear a truly inspiring speech.. listen to the one in which MLK came out against the Vietnam war.
He didn't burn the fag, interfere with the rights of others or call his country the devil (although certainly would have been justified in doing so at the time) He took the time to lay out for the people what America was and who Americans were and then contrasted that with its/our actions in Vietnam. It was a pivotal moment and a speech that allowed people who had trouble grappling with their patriotism yet their dislike with our being in Vietnam.. His words made it possible for those people to dissent and do so feeling they were not being un patriotic.

contrast the gist of that speech with the hatefull spew you hear from the likes of Nathan or the rest of the anti American left/anti war crowd.

Its not even close. And what becomes very tangeable is the difference in motives between both.
MS

[asslicking homophobe]

Originally posted by Mike S
Now we have North Korea.. another country terrorizing its citizens.. too bad we cant do the same for them due their having WMD..

so now are you saying iraq didn't have'em?

[Ram]

I have heard MLJ Jr.'s speech where he was against the Vietnam
war. But I'm referring to this actions with regards to how of fight
oppression in this country. I too agree it must be done without
bitterness and misdirected anger.

The American government need not use force with China. They could
however stop treating them as "friends". Likewise with Pakistan and
other dictatorial regimes. Again, the hypocrisy is what makes none of
this credible.

I think what the use of force did in this case in the long term is
convince psychopaths that they should have their WMDs before they
mouth off someone who does. What I think it did in the long term is
teach people the lesson "physical might is right". For me to change
the view "violence begets violence" would require far far far more
peace after the last act of violence by anyone. So, no, I still think
the government did the wrong thing given past history, until we
see consistent behaviour from the Administration in its
treatment of all oppression.

I don't really care about going against or for the U.N., or listening
to France and Germany, or worrying about the "Arab street". I do think
what is right needs to be done. But I don't think violent solutions
are ever "right".

I think history does indeed teach lessons in this regard . It's
possible that the current government has learnt them. We'll see. But
I will continue to point out the hypocrisy in positions of governments
worldwide, including this one, since I pay large amounts of taxes to
service my needs to this particular one.

Remember, the administration nurtured Hussein, and never forget it.

I don't know who said "we made em guess we should live with em". My
whole reason for pointing out past hypocrisies is to NOT make any more
of them in the first place. And one can fight without physical
violence, as MLK Jr., and Gandhi showed. The Iraqi people could've
also achieved it. Heck, I think the Palestinians could've easily
achieved their goals by practicising non-violent resistance.

Gandhi, and MLK Jr., and several other great people, including the
founders, were also flawed people. There were flaws with Gandhi, but
not what you point out. I don't think pacifist resistance is
committing physical violence. If you note, right from the beginning
I've used the words "physical violence". Starvation is not coercion,
neither is the civil disobedience MLK Jr. advocated. No one pointed a
gun at the head of British and said: "Don't let Gandhi starve." So I
do not buy that argument.

Again, the main thing is that one live by their principles. At least
for me, that's what's important.

[Mike S]

Originally posted by asslicking homophobe


so now are you saying iraq didn't have'em?

:rolleyes:

[Mike S]

Originally posted by Ram

Remember, the administration nurtured Hussein, and never forget it.
.

No.. it didnt. Thats relativism and it does fly with me.

MS

[Ram]

Remember, the government (and other Western governments) has nurtured
Hussein and several other dictators worldwide who oppress their
people. Remember that the government overthrew Iran's elected leader,
leading to the Shah of Iran, which lead to the Iranian revolution in
the year Hussein assumed power, and a large part of this mess in the
first place.

http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/ciairan.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html
http://peace.moveon.org/bulletin31.php3
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/dictators.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29&notFound=true
http://www.progressive.org/0901/anth0498.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/flashbks/iraqwar.htm
http://www.thetip.org/art_61_icle.html
http://www.neravt.com/left/cia.html

Remember the government once nurtured the likes of Bin Laden and
colleagues, working with Pakistan's dictators. This eventually led to
Bin Laden killing thousands of people.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/627355.asp?cp1=1
http://www.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/13407.pdf

I remember, so I can learn about the subtle nature of emergent
systems, feedback loops, and human evolution.

I remember, in the hope that the government will not make the same
mistakes again, so people can focus on more productive things.

[HexRei]

Originally posted by Ram
Remember the government once nurtured the likes of Bin Laden and
colleagues, working with Pakistan's dictators. This eventually led to
Bin Laden killing thousands of people.


Ah yes, it would have been much better if the Russians had been allowed to annex Afghanistan.

[Boyd Main]

Originally posted by HexRei
Ah yes, it would have been much better if the Russians had been allowed to annex Afghanistan. Quite possibly, yes. But we'll never know. ;)

[HexRei]

Originally posted by Boyd Main
Quite possibly, yes. But we'll never know. ;)

Yeah, look how well Russia handled the rest of their nation!
Perhaps the Jews might have been better off left in Auschwitz too, huh? GUESS WE'LL NEVER KNOW! :rolleyes:

[Ram]

The Russians did annex Afghanistan. They were driven out by the
Mujahiddeen.

We'll never know, but my guess is that they'd have been driven out
anyway (I think people do have a desire to be free) without the
intervention of the CIA and Pakistan's ISI.

And I think communist dictatorship in the Soviet Union would've
collapsed anyway, so what we did was trained and armed a bunch of
psychopaths who've now made it their mission to take a few people
along with them.

My point anyway isn't what should or shouldn't have been done before. It's what should be done in the future. I do think a Marshall plan for Iraq would be prudent.