[ALEXIS_DH]

hmm,. i´ve wondering about that lately.
specially after i read some comments on scott ritter on the war, and past quotes from todays US leaders who 10 years in advance, had a prophetical view on today´s war.

in the light of such heavy arguments against the war, and the ludicrous argument of WMDs, then the shameless switch into a "freedom war" and the US being safer than ever because the invasion of iraq, and etc, etc, i read today an article on a newspaper on the subject.

it was a translation from an article on the boston globe from september 21 2004.

so i found the original (i think so) of the article online and here it is...

.....
The war policy of George W. Bush -- "preventive war," unilateralism, contempt for Geneva -- breaks with tradition, but there is nothing new about the American population's refusal to face what is being done in our name. This is a sad, old story. It leaves us ill-equipped to deal with a pointless, illegal war......
....
We carefully nurture a spirit of detachment toward the wars we pay for. But that means we cloak ourselves in cold indifference to the unnecessary suffering of others -- even when we cause it. We don't look at any of this directly because the consequent guilt would violate our sense of ourselves as nice people. Meaning no harm, how could we inflict such harm?
.....

i see that as a special underlying assumption on several conservatives posters on this board.

anyway


http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0921-01.htm


thoughts???

 

[zod]

I think people always have a cold indifference in war, regardless of justifications........ It is the only way to "finish the job" without losing your mind. Those doing the work are the people I am refering to. Us civilians have the luxery of sitting back and pondering...

But your quote got me thinking......

You think the terrorists on those planes had a cold indifference to the unnecessary suffering of the "others" on those planes???

You think Saddam had a cold indifference to the unnecessary suffering of his own people by his own hands???

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

I think people always have a cold indifference in war, regardless of justifications........ It is the only way to "finish the job" without losing your mind. Those doing the work are the people I am refering to. Us civilians have the luxery of sitting back and pondering...

But your quote got me thinking......

You think the terrorists on those planes had a cold indifference to the unnecessary suffering of the "others" on those planes???

You think Saddam had a cold indifference to the unnecessary suffering of his own people by his own hands???

yup, but still as a watching civilian you got some things in your over the destinies of those US soldiers that fight those wars, and those iraquies dying by the ton.

i dont think 9/11 is something forgivable nor something that should stay in the limbo. I agree that actions are to be taken.

MY point, is that in this quest to punish responsible, the US (actually GWB) has commited an excess and has actually started not imparting justice, but a blood thrist to punish someone, and in the lack of good results on getting a hold of the TRUE responsibles (not that none have being caught, but that a lot innocents have footed up the bill so far), not really mattering is the punished (the iraquies or the afghan people) are those to be punished in the 1st place.

and saddam?? oh c´mon, saddam is a mofo, and had killed thousands, but after the gulfwar, his might and his killing of his own people had declined. not that am saying that its good.

BUT its the case of the lesser of 2 evils. saddam staying, a few thousand deaths (the future deaths, not the 80s because they already happened, PLUS i dont even count the fact that the US backed up saddam when he was at his worst), or to avoid those future deaths... a billionaire invassion, killing several thousands of iraquies, and probably leaving those surviving iraquies, with the bill (A huge external debt because of this "freedom war"), that will make them a dependant client-nation of the US????? none of the chances are good, but my point is that this war is costing more than the problem origianlly itself (the residue of the 80s saddam).

and of course, this we are talking are the "reasons" to fight of GWB, we dont account here the obvious strategical prize for he who rules such region in the middle east...

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

and btw, and a point is to be made here.

the genocide saddam of the 80s, have very little to do here, since things in iraq are no longer as bad as in the 80s (when the US supported him), AND the fact that all those 80s attrocities were severely reduced in the gulf war, and the UN intervention. (of course some were still going on, but again, were those residual (not that they dont matter, but compared to the solution, what is worse?) a reason to justify the huge invasino an killing going on now????)))

justifying this war on the killings of saddam in the 80s (which somewhat got aready fixed in the gulf war by the US and UN), is somewhat analog like justifying a new invasion of germany because of the attrocities made in wwii (when they are already not happening, and got fixed in that war)

 

[Damn True]

Every 15-20 years we need to remind the rest of the planet that we are running this show.
It helps keep little pi$$-ant countries from getting uppity.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Every 15-20 years we need to remind the rest of the planet that we are running this show.
It helps keep little pi$$-ant countries from getting uppity.

yup, perfect validity-test of the argument of the guy who wrote that article ink:

uh, i forgot

"Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall.
Prov 16:18"

 

[Damn True]

yup, perfect validity-test of the argument of the guy who wrote that article ink:

uh, i forgot

"Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall.
Prov 16:18"

Clearly someone from one of the aforementioned "pi$$-ant" countries.



DUDE, IT WAS A JOKE

 

[nicklin]

Clearly someone from one of the aforementioned "pi$$-ant" countries.



DUDE, IT WAS A JOKE

ouch.

but in all serious note, I partially support it on the basis that it keeps the region in check and realize that if they were to pull somehting funny, what happened to Saddam, who was clearly a douche, can easily happen to them as well.

But heck, no one told us we had to RUN the damn f8cking country. We still have crack addicts and heroine dealers roaming in our streets, why can't we deal with them first?

But I suppose liberating a country has its collateral prices to pay. It's not like the French were likely to do anything other than scratch Saddam's back in hope for large contracts.

 

[genpowell71]

Ummm Alexis, I need to point one thing out. The majority of the mass graves are from right before Desert Storm and during the kurdish uprising. Yes there are mass graves from the 80's and I'm sure that there are lots of them. But the ones we found in the last 9 months are Kurdish and Kuwaiti mass graves. He kidnapped over 5000 kuwaitis when he invaded. I've seen the places that Saddam and his sons lined people up against the walls and shot them because they wanted to. My company found one of Qusay's underground torture chamber in Mosul. Trust me when I say that he was FAR worse than his father. Saddam's othe son Uday would stop on the side of the road a weddings and take the bride away, RAPE her and drop her off on the corner of a street and tell her to go back to her new husband. If we hadnt done this now then we'd be back here later. I dont justify the reasons that Bush went to war. But I do think that if Saddam was left to give the reigns of power to his sons that there would have been a war there anyway. Uday was all about developing Chemical and Bio weapons to use on anyone that got in Iraq's way. Qusay was a strong supporter of state sponsored terrorists (Fedeyeen Saddam as an example).