[fluff]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA


They took 8 years to not act....how much time did they need?

A tangent to this thread yes but in all this USA done wrong, many people are remiss in aknowledging that the UN was unable to do anything before the USA went in relatively alone. I didn't see any progress with the way the UN handled things. That is part of my contention with all the people I talk to.

Them: "Oh the UN was doing stuff...."
Me: "OK tell me if any of it was working?"
Them: "Yeah well they were doing stuff.....

Them: "The US is doing the wrong thing......"
Me: "What should be done?"
Them: Well,......I don't know, but the US is doing the wrong thing...."

This finger pointing infuriates me.....give me a feasible alternative that wasn't tried. Would it have been successful? Obviously plenty of people know what shouldn't have been done, but have no real alternatives to impliment.

Why do you not see any alternatives to invasion yourself? Was continued diplomacy and economic/political pressure yielding such disastrous results? After all the invasion has shown that Iraq was militarily weak and the WMD argument vastly overstated.

So if Iraq was no threat to its neighbours (as appears to be the case) why did we need to invade?

Why turn the argument on its head? You are looking for people to give you reasons not to invade, surely it should be the other way round. Justify war, not peace.

Anyway, weren't we bitching about this in another thread somewhere <insert appropriate smiley..>?

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by ummbikes
Thats a tough question. The thing Hitler had going for him was a a population whipped into a nationalistic frezy who really felt like Germany was going to recover from their financial situation.

Any economic sanctions we could have applied would have pushed Germany into an escaltion of their empire building and put us in the war sooner.

At the same time we were pushing hardcore embargos on Japan which some say (Howard Zinn the most) was the reason they attacked Pearl Harbor.

The point I was making is that FDR was a good leader, who did good things, who also knew Hitler was killing jews for three years before we enetered the war. To his credit we did inplement the Lend/Lease policys.

I'm not attacking FDR at all here, I realize it is easy to look back and analyze a sitiutaion and see other options. I was just pointing out some historical facts.

No you orginially said IGNORED, which is not a historical fact, it is a relatively unfounded opinion. FDR did what he could to move America to war while rebuilding a shattered economy, fighting off isolationists and Nazi Sympathizers, all without losing the Presidency.

As for knowledge of what was happening to the Jews, it is questionable whether anyone could have forseen in 1938 (3 years before the US entered the war) what was going to happen. The mass murder of Jews and others didn't begin really until 1941, eventhough prior to that the Nazis were getting their ducks in a row in how to best do it.

Zinn believes that all war is evil and none should ever be fought for any reason so..... I'll leave it at that in regards to him.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by ohio
I know I'm setting myself up for another sound beating, but I want to push this point a bit. My claims of "tainting the presidency" has little to do with the actual political slant of the current administration, and much more to do with a demonstration of absolute power of the executive branch that I'm not sure we've seen in modern history. I'm worried that it has undermined the credibility of our checks and balances system, as well as demonstrated to the rest of the world a lack of stability (for lack of a better word) one would normally expect from a republic. We have shown the world that we are nearly as capable of being a "rogue" nation, as the Iraqs and N Koreas, of the world.... all while having the strongest military on Earth.

I don't think people will soon forget, or stop fearing, that demonstration of power. Some people may see that as a positive... on most levels I do not.

I understand your point. But you have seen this type of demonstration of absolute power by the Presidency before. Actually 8 of the last 10 presidents have put US combat troops into harms way with only the barest of worry about Congressional approval. You could even say that Clinton in the bombing of Yugoslavia went directly against Congress and its wishes.

The last time the Congress declared war was 1941. How many major conflicts have we fought since then? Even since the War Powers Act in 1973, how many times as a President followed the requirements fully?

BUT show me the resolution or law passed by Congress that condemns the President. Congress has had a multitude of opportunities to say stop it, even to the point of removing funding for actions in Iraq but..... nothing. Which except for Yugoslavia (sort of) is status quo.

Plus with an election coming in almost a year we will see what the American people believe, which is really the ultimate check and balance.

The world has either seen this and it is only now catching on that the US can and typically will flex its muscle everytime that a President thinks he should with or without the UN. Or they are upset because a US president told them to "f' off" in essence. But again this is not anything new. Its just some of the folks that got told that may or may not have heard it before.

Stability from a Republic? You are way off there. I think the exact opposite. I would expect a great deal of instability for a Republic. The one example that isn't is America.

Again I go back to my orginial statement. It is a matter of perspective. For some the US government probably has never been stronger. For others we are in the bowels of the worse times that we could ever have.... In 1 to 4 years, the perspective will most likely have shifted.

 

[fluff]

I feel that the problem lies within the failings of democracy as a system of government. Or more precisely the inevitable party political system and it's abuse.

Where you have a head of state that is elected, particularly in a state as large as the US, that head of state will be aligned with (if not a member of) a political party. Typically only two major parties will have any real shot at power. Then it becomes inevitable that a great deal of the decisions made will be political with a major part of the agenda being to remain in power.

In an ideal world we would be better served by a head of state who is independent of party politics and is not inhibited by seeking re-election for themselves or their political party, in effect a benevolent monarch. However given human nature that situation has more drawbacks than democracy.

In summary what we have (democracy) is open to abuse but it's probably the best we will get. At least we do have the power to change it (in theory at least).

Capitalism and greed on the other hand are much more dangerous and make for dangerous bedfellows. When they become the primary focus of a head of state we get problems.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by fluff
Is this just random jingoistic flag-waving or have you done full research on the questions that you raise? I ask because I do not know whether what you say has any validity.

I would certainly question areas such as;

economic development
financial amnesty
debt forgiveness
civil rights
free trade
human rights

If you don't have the data to back these assertions up they do not belong in this debate.

And are rocket science and the atomic bomb such great things?

as much drivel that gets slung around here, i'm way above the fray - your appeal to authority is better directed elsewhere. also, i gotta level with you: i just don't feel the need to defend my thesis to someone who says "So if Iraq was no threat to its neighbours (as appears to be the case) why did we need to invade?". There is such a yawning chasm of perspective that quite a deal of work would be involved - work that is better spent getting the courage to do a particular 8 ft drop w/ a 10 ft runout.

as items cross my unblinking gaze to support - nay - refute my claims, i shall dutifully pass them along.

 

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by DRB
No you orginially said IGNORED, which is not a historical fact, it is a relatively unfounded opinion.

It's an fact based in documents from the Roosevelt administration, the U.S. State department and Congresional record. It may not be what you believe but is far more substantiated than just my opinion. If the issue bothers you so much you could do the research and check if I'm just making this stuff up. I could by lying, but I'm not.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by $tinkle
as much drivel that gets slung around here, i'm way above the fray - your appeal to authority is better directed elsewhere. also, i gotta level with you: i just don't feel the need to defend my thesis to someone who says "So if Iraq was no threat to its neighbours (as appears to be the case) why did we need to invade?". There is such a yawning chasm of perspective that quite a deal of work would be involved - work that is better spent getting the courage to do a particular 8 ft drop w/ a 10 ft runout.

as items cross my unblinking gaze to support - nay - refute my claims, i shall dutifully pass them along.

Eh? Are you saying that you are happy to raise the issue yet not willing to defend your stance if challenging in a debating forum?

Then you effectively state that because you and I do not see eye to eye on another subject you don't want to play?

I am open minded o the subject but a blanket statement such as you made needs some qualification or back up. For example how has the US assisted economic development in nations such as Cuba, or civil/human rights within Isreal? Financial amnesty and debt-forgiveness generally come with a political cost.

The US is also a nation where black people were fighting for their rights within my lifetime and has recently passed laws removing basic human rights from many within its borders.

Good luck with the 10ft drops though.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by ummbikes
It's an fact based in documents from the Roosevelt administration, the U.S. State department and Congresional record. It may not be what you believe but is far more substantiated than just my opinion. If the issue bothers you so much you could do the research and check if I'm just making this stuff up. I could by lying, but I'm not.

It's a slight tangent but I recall that the US was more helpful to the Jews than most European nations at that time. Plus which I think that Roosevelt was not in much position to act between 1939 and 1941. Given his situation I'm not sure that he had many options.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by fluff
Why do you not see any alternatives to invasion yourself? Was continued diplomacy and economic/political pressure yielding such disastrous results? After all the invasion has shown that Iraq was militarily weak and the WMD argument vastly overstated.

So if Iraq was no threat to its neighbours (as appears to be the case) why did we need to invade?

Why turn the argument on its head? You are looking for people to give you reasons not to invade, surely it should be the other way round. Justify war, not peace.

Anyway, weren't we bitching about this in another thread somewhere <insert appropriate smiley..>?

I saw no more alternatives.....they were all tried by the UN. They had no rabbits to pull out of their hats. They simply wouldn't/couldn't do anything to have Saddam comly

- Saddam was left in power under conditions.
- Conditions he choose to not follow.
- Saddam gave up his right to rule with any significant military might after his invasion.
- Part of the inspections was to keep his military might low
- Diplomacy for 8 or 11 (I didn't take time to do my math before, thanks Ohio) left us no closer to having Saddam comply to the conditions he agreed to keep him in power.

Again, no one seems to have a freak'n clue what other options (besides a military threat) would work.....not you, I, politicians, etc. Probably because tey were non existent. They just kept threatening the same old-same old and receive the same non-action response.

Whispering sweet nothings in his ear wasn't working. Tell me the alternative to removing him....you can't.

I justified war.....Saddams non-compliance with the conditions set forth to allow him to stay in power. He had a choice before we invaded to step down....he declined....we went in.

I don't know how black and white to make it.

There was no "new secret" diplomatic option available. They were rehasoing old tactics that were unsuccessfull the first couple times. His noncompliance with the resolutions required no further diplomacy....he forefitted his rights to rule the country when he ignored the conditions set by the UN for him to keep his power.

There apperantly was no peace when concerning Saddam. And whether you or the rest of the world is prepared to accept it, Saddam was more than helpfull in choosing this path.

I don't bring up WMD because it really is a nonissue for me, Saddam's noncompliance is.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by ohio
I would contend that the UN didn't act for 8 years (I thought it was 11?) because no one pressured them to. But then we started pressuring them, you say. When we finally did start pressuring them, it was in the most strong-armed, arrogant, decietful manner I can imagine... and then we are somehow suprised that they wouldn't follow through on their resolutions and commit resources. Good diplomacy may also have failed in gthering true UN support, but we'll never know because we never came even close to trying.

They shouldn't need preasure to act they are the police of the world. The resolutions needed enforcement and they were content in letting Saddam continue with little reprecussions.

Diplomacy was used when we left Saddam in power under conditions. It saved soldiers lives and money of a costly war. Need I point out where we are now? Finishing the job that was left undone a decade ago. The UN's inability to commit resources and enforce their resolutions make the organization useless. It was designed to pool resources and keep the Saddam's of the world in check. They have failed. they are not what they once were, and it is obvious they only have time to talk (for a decade) about things to do but never act on them.....

EMPTY THREATS Sad but true

We were strong arming the UN...because the UN was unwilling to act. We also begged and pleaded that the UN take action and the world still was unwilling to finish the job....so we did. We knew it would be rough and dirty. Anyone who thought different is nieve (Like I hope to be most of the time) but war is nvever quick, clean, or easy.

 

[Transcend]

clinton rocked.

he was like the quiet, offensive lineman who liked hitting on cheerleaders who lived next door. He had his heart (and perhaps not other pieces) in the right place.

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by fluff
Eh? Are you saying that you are happy to raise the issue yet not willing to defend your stance if challenging in a debating forum?

not me; Ohio raised the issue

Originally posted by fluff
Then you effectively state that because you and I do not see eye to eye on another subject you don't want to play?

not the case at all, i'm mitigating deviations. Sit tight, it'll come.

Originally posted by fluff
I am open minded o the subject but a blanket statement such as you made needs some qualification or back up. For example how has the US assisted economic development in nations such as Cuba, or civil/human rights within Isreal? Financial amnesty and debt-forgiveness generally come with a political cost.

I'll have to admit you're correct that we don't help this communist gov't (re: cuba), but as for the people, yes indeedy we do. F'rinstance, we have a "wet-foot, dry-foot" law as of nov 2, 1966. Ask those cuban-americans if they like it here vs. their motherland. Methinks they do, although to be frank, i haven't asked. Civil/human rights w/in Israel? Serious? Just as soon as the region becomes civil, we'll chat.

Originally posted by fluff
The US is also a nation where black people were fighting for their rights within my lifetime and has recently passed laws removing basic human rights from many within its borders.

i have to admit being straight-up stupid on this. What basic human rights have been removed from those who belong in our borders? Your turn to practise what you preach & show me the law. findlaw.com coughed up nothing to bolster your claim, but plenty to refute. (exercise for you, not me)

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by $tinkle

i have to admit being straight-up stupid on this.

Apparently. Did you miss that whole Patriot Act thing?

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by ohio
Apparently. Did you miss that whole Patriot Act thing?

i did find this in Title I of the Patriot Act:

Sec. 102. Sense of Congress condemning discrimination against Arab and Muslim Americans

we're not off to a good start here, so let me dig into Title II - Enhanced Surveillance Procedures.

Nope, that seems to crack the whip at our gov't agencies to get their poop together & start talking to each other. You might torture Section 206 to fit your case, but FISA has been in place since 1978.

From what i can tell, it further qualifies existing US Codes to accommodate current technology (they address voicemail, email, etc.).

After scanning the full text, i just don't see where any basic human right has been taken away, even in times of war, which most of this document addresses.

Please correct me, & feel free to use the Eric Alterman Fog Machine, Buzzflash, The Progressive, Democrats Underground, blah, blah, blah.

seriously, i'm not trying to be a prig, just informed.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by $tinkle

Please correct me, & feel free to use the Eric Alterman Fog Machine, Buzzflash, The Progressive, Democrats Underground, blah, blah, blah.

seriously, i'm not trying to be a prig, just informed.

I'm moving house this weekend so I won't have much time to research or post, but I will look into this next week. Believe me the laws exist that mean a foreign national on US soil can be imprisioned without trial, tried by a military court (in secret) and executed.

Ie. the US has the power to kill any foreign national without having to say why.

Woe betide any nation that does that to a US citizen, eh?

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by ummbikes
It's an fact based in documents from the Roosevelt administration, the U.S. State department and Congresional record. It may not be what you believe but is far more substantiated than just my opinion. If the issue bothers you so much you could do the research and check if I'm just making this stuff up. I could by lying, but I'm not.

Really? There is no amount of historical documentation that can substaniate your claim that FDR simply ignored the extermination of Jews for 3 years. I have said this before on this board, its not my job to do your research for you.

The US as whole could have certainly done more especially in the late 30's to help allievate the suffering of the Jews but unfortunately politics, bias, ignorance and down right hatred stopped virtually anything from being done. The US only was filling 10% of the allowed quotas for immigration from Germany and Austria from 1933 until 1938.

But at the sametime FDR was trying to find places for the Jews of Germany and Austria to go. The Evian Conference in July 1938 was held to get other European countries to accept them. The end result was nothing. He pushed Great Britian hard to allow more immigration into Palestine, which resulted in exactly the opposite Great Britian capped that immigration.

In the end, he was very much hamstrung on exactly what he could do. Most of the historical record indicate that FDR and his advisors were planning as early as late 1939 to bring the US to war with Germany. But with a majority of the country still believing it was a European problem that the US had no business getting involved in and with an election looming in 1940, there was little if any room to move at all.

Again I say in very simple terms, there is a very big difference between IGNORING something and not being able to do something about it.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by ohio
Apparently. Did you miss that whole Patriot Act thing?

There is something that you can really sink your teeth into. What an f'ing mess that is.

I don't get to worried about the US strong arming other nations, nor do I worry much about what other countries think about us and a President using our military is not anything new. But the Patriot Act (god the very name gets my blood boiling) is something altogether different.

If the provisions of the Patriot Act are not allowed to time out, as they were intended to do, I believe that the US will have much more than a tainted Presidency. In my mind it would have meant a fundamental and almost complete failure of the system of checks and balances to protect the citizens of the US and the rights afforded to us by the Constitution.

 

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by DRB

Again I say in very simple terms, there is a very big difference between IGNORING something and not being able to do something about it.

In the spirit of fairness you are correct the use of the "ignore" is subjective.

Saying he was unable to act is also subjective.

Been fun discussing this.



Shall we fight about the true causes of the Civil War?