Zappa.com

The Official Frank Zappa Messageboards
It is currently Wed Apr 23, 2014 4:34 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 249 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Bush Vs. Saddam
PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2003 4:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 9:05 pm
Posts: 423
::) Well-thought-out argument. (?)

_________________
Who ran a modeling school whereupon he!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bush Vs. Saddam
PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2003 4:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2002 4:37 am
Posts: 2155
Location: belgium
[quote author=Them link=board=general;num=1048053908;start=165#173 date=03/31/03 at 05:58:39]There are many reasons for this war.<br><br>People who are against this particular war at all costs have often argued that the Bush administration's reasons for military action in Iraq are either poorly defined or subject to change in order to suit the administration's ever-changing propaganda needs. They complain that Bush hasn't remained on point; I personally believe this to be a disingenuous argument. The delineation of the host of reasons for military action can have a persuasive effect among fair-minded people, and the anti-war contingent has no recourse other than to accuse Bush of being inconsistent.<br><br>Among those on the left who have come out in support, for differing reasons, of the Bush administration's decision to engage Saddam militarily are Hillary Clinton (disarmament), Christopher Hitchens (oil) and Andrew Young (tyranny, oppression).<br>...<br>[/quote]<br>very informative - but you have not really responded to my initial question.  <br>I'll pose another one: <br>What do you think of the fact that Bush in his rethoric indicates the freedom of the iraqi people as one of the top reasons for this war (cfr the name of the operation), whereas US-actions (the past embargo, the fact that Sadam was not removed from power last time because the US needed a reason to stay military present in the region, the bombing of civil targets, etc.) show something else. Don't you think that Bush is 'lying' in some sort of way? Of course, the removal of the tyrant will be better for the Iraqis, sure, but that is only a bonus of his strategy, and that is way, imo, he is twisting the truth, which is moraly loathsome, and for sure if your a born again Christian.<br><br>[quote author=Them link=board=general;num=1048053908;start=165#173 date=03/31/03 at 05:58:39]Madeleine Albright is probably the worst Secretary Of State the United States has ever had.[/quote]<br>This might well be, but don't you think her utterings give a glimps of how also a lot of the other officials in command think? <br>Her qualities as a Secretary Of State have nothing to do with the morality of her uttering - it is a loathsome indication of a certain way of thinking that surely many others in the White House & the Pentagon adhere.<br><br>

_________________
bananarama


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: re: bush vs. saddam
PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2003 12:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 7:29 pm
Posts: 9520
Image

_________________
Image


Last edited by slime.oofytv.set on Fri Aug 30, 2013 9:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bush Vs. Saddam
PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 9:05 pm
Posts: 423
[quote author=bb link=board=general;num=1048053908;start=165#176 date=03/31/03 at 06:54:10]<br><br>very informative - but you have not really responded to my initial question. [/quote]<br><br>Your initial question asked if I believe that this administration's primary reason for war was "the safety/ freedom of the Iraqi people." My response was that I believe there are many converging reasons for the war, and, since it seems I wasn't clear, I believe that the Bush administration's reasons for military action against Saddam are of a similarly various and interrelated nature, and that the expression of a "primary" reason on the part of the administration isn't a necessary component of any argument they might make. I certainly believe that the freedom and safety of the Iraqi people is a huge consideration and a primary goal of this administration, and this is reflected in Bush's speeches of late; it is paramount that the Iraqi people understand that we are not in their country as occupiers, but as liberators. This accounts for Bush and Powell's recent focus on Saddam's tyranny.<br> <br>Surely you have heard this administration's case. As such here is no need for me to make it for them again. And defending it from arguments springing from assumptions is a tiresome proposition, but I'll have some more coffee and give it yet another go:<br><br>[quote author=bb link=board=general;num=1048053908;start=165#176 date=03/31/03 at 06:54:10]<br><br>I'll pose another one: <br>What do you think of the fact that Bush in his rethoric indicates the freedom of the iraqi people as one of the top reasons for this war (cfr the name of the operation), whereas US-actions (the past embargo, the fact that Sadam was not removed from power last time because the US needed a reason to stay military present in the region, the bombing of civil targets, etc.) show something else. [/quote]<br><br>Here are your assumptions:<br><br>1) Your assertion is fact;<br>2) Bush is engaging in rhetoric;<br>3) The past embargo was a U.S. action;<br>4) Saddam was allowed to remain in power because the U.S. needed a reason to maintain a military presence in the Middle East;<br>5) The bombing of civilian targets was a "U.S. action" (adopting any credible analytic process, your choice of words presupposes intentionality);<br>6) Assumptions 3 - 5 support the notion of duplicity on the part of the administration.<br><br>Until you prove your assumptions I am prevented from responding to them.<br><br>[quote author=bb link=board=general;num=1048053908;start=165#176 date=03/31/03 at 06:54:10]<br><br>Don't you think that Bush is 'lying' in some sort of way?[/quote]<br><br>No. I don't share the view held by a majority here that Bush is a cynical, disingenuous politician. My take on Bush is that his brutal honesty is what enrages his critics. If I am proven wrong, I promise to eat my words, right here on this board, in a series of mea culpae.<br><br>[quote author=bb link=board=general;num=1048053908;start=165#176 date=03/31/03 at 06:54:10]<br><br> Of course, the removal of the tyrant will be better for the Iraqis, sure, but that is only a bonus of his strategy, and that is way, imo, he is twisting the truth, which is moraly loathsome, and for sure if your a born again Christian.[/quote]<br><br>But you haven't shown him to be morally loathsome because you haven't shown him to be twisting the truth. I respect your opinion, but I don't share it. For the sake of your argument it is imperative that you prove that he is twisting the truth, as it is logically impossible for me to prove that he is not.<br><br>[quote author=bb link=board=general;num=1048053908;start=165#176 date=03/31/03 at 06:54:10]<br><br>This might well be, but don't you think her utterings give a glimps of how also a lot of the other officials in command think? [/quote]<br><br>No. If anything, her (unattributed) utterings reflect the views of the Clinton administration, and they might not have reflected that.<br><br>[quote author=bb link=board=general;num=1048053908;start=165#176 date=03/31/03 at 06:54:10]<br><br>Her qualities as a Secretary Of State have nothing to do with the morality of her uttering - it is a loathsome indication of a certain way of thinking that surely many others in the White House & the Pentagon adhere.<br>[/quote]<br><br>The Clinton administration was the most vehemently anti-military administration the U.S. has ever seen; her (unattributed) views in no way reflect the overwhelming, prevailing collective mindset at the Pentagon.<br><br>That being said, I'd like you to provide a quote and a source for your attribution to Albright that "the death of half a million Iraqi-children due to the embargo...was all in all, a reasonable coast for the US-interest in the region." As little respect as I have for her, until you provide proof, I won't believe that even she expressed such views.

_________________
Who ran a modeling school whereupon he!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bush Vs. Saddam
PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2003 12:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2002 4:37 am
Posts: 2155
Location: belgium
[quote author=Them link=board=general;num=1048053908;start=180#180 date=03/31/03 at 15:50:29]Your initial question asked if I believe that this administration's primary reason for war was "the safety/ freedom of the Iraqi people." My response was that I believe there are many converging reasons for the war, and, since it seems I wasn't clear, I believe that the Bush administration's reasons for military action against Saddam are of a similarly various and interrelated nature, and that the expression of a "primary" reason on the part of the administration isn't a necessary component of any argument they might make. I certainly believe that the freedom and safety of the Iraqi people is a huge consideration and a primary goal of this administration, and this is reflected in Bush's speeches of late; it is paramount that the Iraqi people understand that we are not in their country as occupiers, but as liberators. This accounts for Bush and Powell's recent focus on Saddam's tyranny.<br> <br>Surely you have heard this administration's case. As such here is no need for me to make it for them again. [/quote]<br>Fair enough - I know understand your point completely I think.<br><br>[quote author=Them link=board=general;num=1048053908;start=180#180 date=03/31/03 at 15:50:29]2) Bush is engaging in rhetoric;<br>3) The past embargo was a U.S. action;[/quote]<br>2) of course he is - you even admitted to that in much earlier threads.<br><br>[quote author=Them link=board=general;num=1048053908;start=180#180 date=03/31/03 at 15:50:29]4) Saddam was allowed to remain in power because the U.S. needed a reason to maintain a military presence in the Middle East;[/quote]<br>Indeed, I cannot prove this, but I am supported in my view by many UN-officials, among which the previous head of the first UN-weapons inspection, and a lot of political analysts. but indeed, this cannot be proven, at least not by my means (i don't have acces to governement documents, etc.) I know I won't convince you of this fact. <br>However, don't you think this might be the case, in the light of your above mentioned strategic intrests?<br><br>[quote author=Them link=board=general;num=1048053908;start=180#180 date=03/31/03 at 15:50:29]5) The bombing of civilian targets was a "U.S. action" (adopting any credible analytic process, your choice of words presupposes intentionality);[/quote]<br>It was a US-action (with UK, okay) not with the pure intention of killing civilians, but with the knowledge a lot of 'collateral' dammage (there you have an example of rethoric) could accure when bombing a crowded city. I know, these are the facts of war, but therefor, in my view, the freedom of Iraqi people isn't goal number 1, for then they would apply other tactics. (e.g. try to evoke a coup d'état, etc.) I know you admit that is not the goal of the war, but the whole official rethoric that surrounds the war does represent it that way (e.g., again, the name of the operation itself)<br><br>[quote author=Them link=board=general;num=1048053908;start=180#180 date=03/31/03 at 15:50:29]6) Assumptions 3 - 5 support the notion of duplicity on the part of the administration.[/quote]<br>The Bush administration and Bush himself generly try to mask the more 'hardcore', 'economical', 'strategical' interests that led to this war, in favor of the 'humanitarian' reasons. I see this as a duplicity.<br><br>[quote author=Them link=board=general;num=1048053908;start=180#180 date=03/31/03 at 15:50:29]No. I don't share the view held by a majority here that Bush is a cynical, disingenuous politician. My take on Bush is that his brutal honesty is what enrages his critics. If I am proven wrong, I promise to eat my words, right here on this board, in a series of mea culpae.[/quote]<br>I guess we are in stalemate here. <br>I do find it hard to believe you are not really critical to Bushes rethoric (all leaders in war use rethoric, look at history) while you prove a very worthy and critical debate partner on this board.<br><br>[quote author=Them link=board=general;num=1048053908;start=180#180 date=03/31/03 at 15:50:29]But you haven't shown him to be morally loathsome because you haven't shown him to be twisting the truth. I respect your opinion, but I don't share it. For the sake of your argument it is imperative that you prove that he is twisting the truth, as it is logically impossible for me to prove that he is not.<br>[/quote] Look to my reply an your quote concerning 3-5, but I know this won't convince you. As I said, I simply can't, indeed also from a logical point of view, for my information is based on impresssions from tv and newspaper, nothing first-hand. As is yours, of course. Therefor, you also cannot prove your stances.<br><br>
Quote:
As little respect as I have for her, until you provide proof, I won't believe that even she expressed such views.
<br>I saw a solid British tv-documentary wherein documents were shown that the tv-channel (CBC, could that be? - I can't remember, and don't know all the american channels, so) who was going to air her utterings, was ordered not do do so. Tv, I know.<br><br>

_________________
bananarama


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bush Vs. Saddam
PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2003 12:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2002 4:37 am
Posts: 2155
Location: belgium
[quote author=MentalTossFlycoon link=board=general;num=1048053908;start=180#181 date=04/01/03 at 01:00:57]Once this war is over and Saddam is gone, I think the US should focus on solving the Palestinian problem. I think that will do far more to stop terrorism than conquering Iraq will.[/quote]<br>The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

_________________
bananarama


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bush Vs. Saddam
PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2003 2:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2002 4:37 am
Posts: 2155
Location: belgium
[quote author=Them link=board=general;num=1048053908;start=180#180 date=03/31/03 at 15:50:29]Until you prove your assumptions I am prevented from responding to them.<br><br>My take on Bush is that his brutal honesty is what enrages his critics. If I am proven wrong, I promise to eat my words, right here on this board, in a series of mea culpae.[/quote]<br><br>It struck me that you want me to prove my points of view, which is a valid demand of course. On the other hand, I can easily apply the same logic to your statements. Can you prove Bushes "brutal honesty", etc., etc.?<br><br>It is not my intention to be a smartass, on the contrary. I just want to indicate that this debate suffers from a lack of solid, valid information, on both sides.<br>Whereas here in Europe most of the media is more or less critical (but not that critical) to US-policy, and my opinions are colored by that, your opinions are of course colored by the overall pro-US-media in your country.  I'd appreciated it if you at least admit to that fact - something you overall fail to do in most of your posts concerning the war, even those dating months back.<br><br>One example: the fact that you did not respond to my remark I made much earlier that also you are subject to US-propaganda. (btw, I repeated this remark for your and others convinience in the post above.) This undermines your status as an objective debating partner, a rethoric status you heavily rely on in this debate (e.g. illustrated by the fact that you want prove from me, numerous quotes from statemen, the fact that you question the fact that Bush is being rethoric, etc.)<br><br>Anyhow, I must admit that overall you clearly give your opinion, well-documented, etc.  That is why I am enjoying the way this debate is going know, I find it to be very instructive.

_________________
bananarama


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bush Vs. Saddam
PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2003 4:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2002 4:37 am
Posts: 2155
Location: belgium
[quote author=Arkay link=board=general;num=1048053908;start=180#185 date=04/01/03 at 06:16:20] <br>Also, I don't think that the US should appoint itself as world policeman or even world problem-solver.  Its not the job of the US to solve everyone's problems and I think alot of the anger that is pointed towards the US is generated by the fact that other countries feel we control them too much as it is.  Aid in social engineering is a wonderful thing when asked for, but an oppression for those who have it inflicted on them.[/quote]<br><br>I subscribe to this even more, although Mentals observations remain true if you take them as a critique on this war & its purposes.<br><br>

_________________
bananarama


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bush Vs. Saddam
PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2003 9:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2002 12:09 pm
Posts: 2476
Location: arse
i never knew that george bushs' previous and well documented booze related behaviour was a big secret. in fact i thought they where common knowledge and that the man readily admitted to em and is now a reformed tea - toatler, the fact that he has done so is a credit i would have thought. as for the other stuff - i dunno, but when clinton was under investigation he seemed to get a lot of sympathy - and he really was a blatent liar with a way of twisting meanings that only a lawer has.<br><br>anyway, none of this has much to do with the rights and wrongs of the iraqi conflict - its a red herring as what happend in dubyas distant past has as much bearing on his current policy toward terrorism as clintons had regarding his bombing terrorist training camps in sudan a few years back.<br><br>focusing on dubyas past is a good diversionary tatic but contributes noyhing in terms of the debate on this thread - its another story for another thread and besides now things have settled down here why start up the old bash bush thing again ? <br><br>george bush is inarticulate but by no means dumb - far from it - thats my opinion anyway . besides i hate media savvy politicians like tony blair , terrible .<br><br>mungo

_________________
Drink..............it provokes the desire, but it takes away the performance


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bush Vs. Saddam
PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2003 10:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2002 8:28 am
Posts: 201
Speaking of diversionary tactics<br>Perhaps this military operation in Iraq is just that, a badly thought out diversionary tactic.<br>But as with politics today, thought is not part of the procedure.<br>The worldwide support the US garnered after 911 has been replaced with distrust and derision. <br>Our track record for "liberating" a country and creating democracies is inaudible. Of the almost twenty countries we have bombed since world war II, not one has maintained a semblance of democracy or liberation.<br>The world no longer gives a shit how big our dick is, because they see the blistering disease for what it is.<br>The apologist can continue to justify terrorism in the name of democracy but the world is slowly growing too smart for that shit. They also realize how spread thin the US has become at home and abroad. Beware real terrorist events are to come (as opposed to highly trained military operations masterminded by whomever)<br>Bush is the same person he always has been, his history is relevant as the lies continue to pour out.

_________________
I support the troops with magnetic ribbons that say "support the troops" That is what they need. Bringing them home would save too many lives.
What are you doing?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bush Vs. Saddam
PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2003 12:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2002 12:09 pm
Posts: 2476
Location: arse
well not all the countries the united states " bombed " as you put it where " bombed " with the intention of imposing democracy amonra. sudan was bombed but the intention was to eradicate a terrorist camp not to install democracy - the basic premise of your argument is bogus.  we all know there have been cock - ups but there follows my  off-the-top-of-my-head list of those instances where the inhabitants where much , much better off after receiving millitary assistance from the usa :<br>south korea , berlin during the airlift , bosnia + kosovo , afganistan. without the threat of american retaliation many more would have been consumed by the soviet empire, without american aid many more would have succumed to communism too. perhaps you recon that would have been a good thing - i disagree. <br><br>your artificial cut off line after 1945 is also a nonsense of course - i can think of no american benefit to nothin since , um , 2002 - silly aint it ?<br><br>regarding president bush , if you can tell me exactly why his past drinkin related offences are relevant to the rights and wrongs of this iraq situation im listining - good luck as i recon you will have trouble coming up with much of an argument. <br><br>also , do yoy really not believe a person can change or reform ? if thats the case i dont think there is much hope for any of us , do you ? <br>fact is george w is an alchoholic - its an illness see - he doesnt drink at the moment and has not for years ( tell me different if you know better )  - every day the man wakes up in the knowledge that this must not be the day he takes a drink and reverts to what he once was. its the same pattern with millions of other reformed alcoholice thoroghout the world amonra and like george bush the way most of em kicked the habit was through the strength they got from religon.<br>maybe you think thats a bit of a sissy thing or something , i dunno how you think amonra but dont get confused between your beef with bush on a personal level and the justifications for the war , they are two different and quite seperate things.<br><br>mungo<br>

_________________
Drink..............it provokes the desire, but it takes away the performance


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bush Vs. Saddam
PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2003 12:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2002 12:09 pm
Posts: 2476
Location: arse
i dont think the " with us or against us " thing is the american position regarding other nations at all ronnies -the USA govt. seems perfectly aware of the difficult position mant other countries find themselves in regarding their own relationships with iraq ( jordan , turkey for instance ) and also those countries such as germany where there is a strong aversion to millitary action arising from recent history . <br>of course the real problem is with france who activly and cynically lobbied against the USA . the reason the french did that is another story, but i can assure you that it was not for alturistic reasons.<br><br>mungo

_________________
Drink..............it provokes the desire, but it takes away the performance


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bush Vs. Saddam
PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2003 6:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2002 7:45 pm
Posts: 3384
Location: St-Hyacinthe, Québec, Canada
[quote author=amonra link=board=general;num=1048053908;start=180#191 date=04/01/03 at 12:19:09]<br>Our track record for "liberating" a country and creating democracies is inaudible. Of the almost twenty countries we have bombed since world war II, not one has maintained a semblance of democracy or liberation.<br>[/quote]<br><br>Funny. This week, I met a woman from Dominicain Republic (République Dominicaine) who remembered that the Marines invaded her place in 1965. There was a military regime at that time, and the leftists was at them. US sent troops cause they thougt another Cuba was on the way.<br>History keeps repeating himself...

_________________
No doubt, we're doomed !


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bush Vs. Saddam
PostPosted: Wed Apr 02, 2003 1:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2002 4:37 am
Posts: 2155
Location: belgium
Apart from the intelligent observations of Ronny & Mental I'd like to question this next one:<br><br>[quote author=MentalTossFlycoon link=board=general;num=1048053908;start=180#193 date=04/01/03 at 14:06:59]But to answer bb's question from a few days ago, the main reason we're doing this is because Saddam Hussein is a legitimate threat, and we're doing it now because we still can.[/quote]<br><br>I mean, the Iraqi country is still a mess, and has been a mess for the past 12 years. <br>A mess, yes, a threat, I dunno.<br>

_________________
bananarama


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 249 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group