On Thursday 20 February 2003 11:17 am, Casper Gielen wrote:
> Op donderdag 20 februari 2003 07:31, schreef Vitaly Luban:
> > Hi Ricsi,
> >
> > Aha, as if Saddam have not used gases against Kurds and Iranians,
> > as if he did not invade Kuwait! Still not enough?
>
> Actually, there is some compelling evidence that the gas that murdered the
> Kurds was released by the Iranians.
See Bob's recent remarks please. So, that's arguable at least.
> But I agree with you, that Saddam
> should be stopped from doing more harm, one way or the other. I don't think
> we have to start a full scale war to do this.
Well, unless you are able to offer a different method, not requiring endless
efforts and expenditures (that excludes supervision & al), I'd agree.
> > That's what, makes him (Saddam) a Santa?
> Saddam is crazy, but not stupid. He knows he's being watched, he knows that
> if he launches an attack, the rest of the world will agree to respond
> immediatly. He will not survive this.
> When he is pushed into a corner, and realises there is no more way out, he
> might decide to take the world with him, and push "the" button.
First of all, what Saddam has to do in this situation is to wait until watch
will weaken or abandoned, and build enough military power to be secure.
Watch does not prevent him from bulding this power, as the guys like you
will insist on action only "if he launches an attack". By the time watch
weakened and he actually launches an attack, he will be strong enogugh
to make an attempt to stop him very painful, if not impossible. That's what
I call too late. Again, look into history of Germany after WWI and Hitler.
> > > WHAT RIGHT has america to invade another country on its own ??
> > The same right Saddam had to invade Kuwait, at least.
>
> exactly, none. That's why Iraq was the agressor.
O yeah, and once declared himself an aggressor, he does not stop being
an aggressor no matter how long time passed, until there's the same regime
and same ruler. Aggression against an aggressor was always called "defence".
> > > I'm not interested in the oil prize.
> > > I'm interested in fair play.
> > The problem here is, that you're talking about the guys and affairs,
> > where there's no place for the fair play.
> Iraq is not participating in the game. The United Nations are playing the
> game: "Should we invade Iraq or not?".
That's not true. Iraq is the main participant in the play by the merit of it's
actions.
> They are playing it amongst their
> members, and the members should respect each other. Specifically, if the UN
> decides not to invade Iraq, the US shouldn't do so either. This also works
> the other way round, if the UN do decide to attack, all members should
> cooperate on this attack.
You are portraying the UN as a kind of a "world government" or "world
authority", which it is not.
> > For anyone to excercise a right, there is a requirement to respect this
> > right of the others. Thus, proven murderer has no right to live, for
> > example. And, IMHO, such an approach is the only fair one.
>
> Your example clearly demonstrates the differences between European and
> American thinking. A typical European view would be: "The state has no
> right to kill anyone, no matter what he did. If you don't respect this
> persons rights, no matter the circumstances, you are just as bad as him."
I'd rather say the above demonstrates the difference between a realistic
thinking and idealistically ultra-egalitarian one. What you do, is that you
are trying to establish a moral equivalence anyone to anyone, no matter
saint, regular, murderer or rapist the subject is. And moreover, you are
trying to portray that way of thinking as "typical European", assuming that
this move will make this idea a legitimate one.
While looking very attractive, like Marxism, this ideology is wrong and an
attempt to implement it in reality will lead to a catastrophic consequences,
the same way Marxism is wrong and we all have seen the consequences
of it's implementation.
It's just does not work this way. The right can only exist if the society
enforces it's respect. And the only way to enforce it is to deprive offenders
of their own rights. If the state and law enforcement will employ the ideology
you're trying to advocate, the society in this state will be ruined very fast
by the historic time scale. Unfortunately, this process is not fast enough for
most leftist wannabe revolutionaries to see the results of their ideology in
action and judge by the results, while, obviously, they are not intelligent
enough to properly calculate the outcome before acting. OTOH, as we've
seen, even mountains of dead bodies and rivers of blood were not enough
for some of them to recognize their ideology faults.
> > See above. Unlike many other countries, Iraq with Saddam does not have
> > a right to have such weapons.
>
> Because he used them to kill innocent civilians that did not threaten him?
> Ask Vietnamese how they think about the USAs right to have such weapons.
AFAIK, US involvement in Vietnam war was not unprovoked.
> > > VL> Have you ever heard the term "preemptive strike"?
> But we are not in a war yet. It might be a legitimate military strategy, it
> certainly isn't a legitimate political move.
Well, if you declare anything before war is actually started to be "political
moves", that will just move preemptive strike from the set of military
strategies to the set of political moves, as preemptive strike could only
be started when there "is not a war yet". :)
> Your neighbour is a terrorist. He plans on hurting your family. If you
> don't believe me, break in to his house, you'll find a baseball bat, plenty
> of rope, gasoline and some chemicals.
You're kidding and you know that.
> > This guy (Saddam) did enough to be guilty. Would you say
> > otherwise?
> But is he guilty enough to sacrifice the lifes of many innocents to take
> him down.
> If he's building more weapons, especially long range weapons, the
> answer is yes. If were not sacrifing lifes, he will kill many more.
BTW, he does not need long range weapons at all. One finger sized
capsule with anthrax spores and one "shaheed" will make no smaller devastation
than a nuclear warhead mounted on a space class rocket system.
Welcome to the new century. And all it thakes to produce is a truck
sized lab and a mosque. And indefinitely cheaper.
So, it does not matter, "If he's building more weapons, especially long range
weapons", it's his readiness to use WMD matters. And he proved himself as
such already.
> > - First of all, whoever US supports financially, does not make US an
> > aggressor.
> It is if you know your support is going to be used for violence.
Saddam even managed to use for that purpose what was allowed to
Iraq for pure humanitarian reasons. One cannot totally control the usage
unless he establishes total control over the subject of such aid.
> > - Third, yes, US supported Iraq and Iran, as it does support many others.
> > But I doubt that Iraq, for one, enjoyed much of US support after Kuwait.
> > Now, about Al-Kaeda, that is a pure freaking lie, and this is exactly the
> > mixing I'm talking about.
>
> I don't have any proof of this (other than webpages stating so) but over
> here (Europe) it's considered common knowledge
That does not make it a proven fact. Just a remark.
> that the US trained Afghan
> rebels to fight against the USSR. One of the leaders of those rebels was
> Osama Bin Laden. I just showed your mail to a roommate, and he was
> seriously surprised you even doubted this.
You're mixing things again. US aid, if any, was directed to afghans, to
help them to struggle against much stronger invader. It was never directed
to an international terrorist organisation. Do not mix Al-Kaeda and, say,
Taliban. Though, in my personal opinion, even this aid was a mistake.
> > I think it is you, who has to understand that it's not. Maybe like
> > Holland and Austria, only stronger, but definitely totally unlike Iraq
> > and Somalia. Here again you make an example of brainwashing of yourself
> > with the method described just above.
> I don't think you understand his point. Although the US are more powerfull
> than any other country, they are only that, just another country. Being
> more powerfull doesn't make the US better, smarter or more important than
> other countries. They do not have more rights.
See Bob's reply.
> >
> > The right example would be: If you and I are the leaders of villages, and
> > you are supporting thieves in the woods, who've done harm to me, and the
> > king, or whoever else is the autority, is reluctant to take action
> > against you, because there's no solid proof of your support (sure thing,
> > how else), I will take an action myself. And rightfully so.
>
> how about: Innocent until PROVEN guilty.
This is a court of law principle. It's valid only when you are whithin the
borders of lawful community, where everything is in order. Though, even
there this principle has a limitations. Example: suspect's jailed before the
court hearing, though only hearing considered to be a point of proof.
And it's totally senseless, when you are in the woods. International politics
and relations are more like woods, like it or not.
> The typical US way of warfare is to first bomb the enemy back to the
> stone-age, and only than send in ground-troops. It's quite a good way of
> fighting a war, but it will lead to many civilian casualties. Maybe not as
> many as other ways of fighting wars, but that's why we're so opposed to
> war.
Don't you see contradiction in your own statements here?
> To Europeans it seems a stupid idea to give weapons to anybody, without a
> way of controling how those weapons will be used.
The stupid idea is that one can control the usage after letting weapons go.
> > > A clear case where the goal (more land for germany) was "less
> > > important" than the collateral damage.
>
> "less important" is a mistake on your side, right? You tried to say that
> the goal of find more land was "more important" (to germany) than the
> collateral damage caused by this.
You are arguing here with Ricsi, not me :)
> first, whatever happend, what Hitler did was worse. But the actions of the
> US might also not be good. The problem is that most Europeans (including
> me) have doubts about the USs primary goal. Most of us think the primary
> goal is "securing oil", if it's not that it's an attempt to draw the
> attention of the US people away from the economical troubles and lack of
> succes in capturing Osama Bin Laden to a goal that's more likely to be
> reached. World peace and liberty for the Iraqis is a nice bonus.
> That's why were so opposed to war. That's why we are insisting on finding
> evidence that affairs in Iraq are getting worse, instead of improving.
Oh, I'm sorry. The full bouquet. Unproven and arguable statements, moral
equalisation of different things, unrealistic demands made as an excuse to
prevent an actions and give to aggressor a time to prepare himself.
Congrats, good homework!
> > But if you will
> > try to place a sign of equality between Hitler, and the allies (as you
> > are undoubtedly instructed, or, at least, brainwashed by your islamic
> > friends),
>
> Wow, so far this has been a heated discussion, now you are crossing a line,
> by implying the Islam is trying to brainwash Europe into hating the US.
Phew! I said exactly what I said. I said not that "Islam is trying to
brainwash Europe into hating the US" but essentially, that some "islamic
friends are trying to brainwash Europe into hating the US".
Moreover, they are not trying, they're doing.
I think you intentionally did not see the difference. Your goal with that
passage was to attach a racist label to me, declare me a hater, declare me as
one "crossing the line" and at least make me busy "washing" myself off all
this dirt and forget about proving you wrong. And for side observer such a
label is often enough to make a prejudice and think the labelled one is wrong
without further analysis.
That's another example of the ways brainwashing and disinformation machine
works. And a good one.
> But enough about this, I'll assume you this is not what you
> inteded to say.
How noble of you, thanks! After label already attached, you are so merciful :)
True European approach, huh?
> > And, while the damage to the countries, invaded by
> > Hitler, counts, nobody gives a sh*t about a damage to Germany itself.
> > And, again, rightfully so. Same thing about Iraq.
>
> nobody but the germans civilians
Oh, shure! They just should know better when they were
electing him and supporting him afterwards.
Regards,
Vitaly.
