[PLUG-TALK] Chirac's shocker... Iraq.

[Jeme A Brelin]

Just a couple of interesting notes not covered elsewhere.

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003, alex wrote:
> And on the same note, if you don't pay taxes then you shouldn't get
> money back more than what your owed. Gee, isn't that taking from the
> worker to give to the sponge?

Like it or not, people have children they cannot afford to feed.  It is
horribly inhumane to make those children suffer for their parents' sins.

Also, consider this argument: Unemployment is required to maintain the
economic system.  The business press refers to this as "labor market
flexibility" and it's a very desirable thing.  It's a decrease in job
security that drives down demand for higher wages, better benefits, and
shorter hours and drives up worker productivity.  If the system requires
some people to not hold jobs, then those people are necessary to the
system and should be paid for doing their part.

> No, so long as there are people like you who will allow evil people to
> do as they wish because "We don't want to hurt anyones feelings". I'd
> rather do the right thing for the right reason than the wrong thing for
> the sake of political correctness.

It's neither hurting a person's feelings nor political correctness that
informs my views.  It is a fundamental belief in the rights of all people
to self-determination and a respect for varied modes of thought and
action.

You'll find that the Bill of Rights does a pretty good job of describing a
person's political rights (though it totally ignores economic rights --
one of the negative effects of having a pre-Capitalist constitution, I
don't think Jefferson would have left those out today).  Imposing
punishment without due process of law is a violation of rights.

> I'm sorry, but it's just that your elitist attitude is showing and is
> becoming such a boor. Again, I'd rather fight for what is right than
> live in a world were people like Saddam are allowed to run free.

I do believe that the one who claims to fight for what's right is the
elitist.  You're pushing other people around under the pretext that you
know better than they do.

I think you need to take a look at history and see that this has been the
justification for most of this century's greatest crimes (Hitler's
invasion of the Sudetenland, Moussilini's invasion of Ethopia, and China's
invasion of Manchuria to name three).  The way to avoid this kind of
violation of human rights is to follow due process of law.

> Congress gave President Bush the power to act in the way that he sees
> fit to combat TERRORISM(remember the Twin Towers Jeme?) in all it's
> forms across the globe and to prevent another attack on our and, by
> extension, eventually anyone else's soil. I think that is a noble task.

Since when does the U.S. Congress have the right to allow ANYTHING on
somebody else's soil?

Aside from that, I think those resolutions were passed through on a wave
of ignorance and emotional argument with little or no consideration for
the real consequences.

And don't get me started on the World Trade Center attack...

I will write, however, that any ill will toward the United States is a
direct result of U.S. imperialism.

> But think back. What did His Holiness Clinton do to really fight
> anything?

Clinton had, until Bush, the worst human rights record of any President
this century.  I have no love for Bill Clinton and don't know anybody who
does.

> Elitist never give the benefit of the doubt because they are always
> right!

Well, you're the one "fighting for what is right" out there... using your
sway on the military machine to kill foreigners in the name of your
opinions.

> I think Iraq will have a form of gov't that will be ratified by the
> Iraqi people. The U.S. may help but in the end it will be done by Iraq.

Well, if the United States had ever done that with any nation it has ever
occupied, I'd have some hope for that, too.  I look at Japan and Germany
as the closest examples of what you describe, but in both cases the
constitutions were written by the occupying armies and both remained
ideologically aligned with the United States for half a century
afterward... probably due largely to the massive military presence that
exists to this day.

In recent history, the U.S. usually just leaves after things have gone to
shit.  The oil might make this one a little different, of course.

> Better that the Iraqi people are able to gather the wealth from oil in
> their country than only the brutal dictator running the show.

But the Iraqi people are not going to gain wealth from their oil.  They
will simply become wage slaves for foreign corporations that control the
oil under contracts signed before a government even existed and honored
through a yet-written grandfather clause.

> > "We'll let you starve, unless you give us oil!"
>
> Russia, France and Germany seemed to see the oil for food program as a
> way to make large sums of money for themselves.

All of the wealthy nations made money on that program... including the
United States.  You're just pointing out those three because they opposed
the invasion and occupation.  If it were a matter of money, Germany and
France would SURELY have been for the war.  There is much more to be made
plundering the nation as a client state than some trickle from an "aid
program".

> Hm.... maybe pre-Iraq-Iran war. Saddam spent every dime he could get his
> hands on to fight that war. Thats when the standard of living went down.
> By 1991, the standard of living in Iraq had already sunk to levels lower
> than what you would see there today(if you'd open your eyes and read
> papers other than the New York Times and their clones).

You made this up entirely.  Just because it's inconsistent with your
worldview doesn't mean it isn't true.

And, for your information, I read mostly foreign newspapers regarding
foreign affairs.  I find I get a more impartial view that way.  My
information on the state of Iraq's standard of living in 1990 was from the
Financial Times a very conservative business publication from the UK.

> Uh, no. Most of the destruction in Iraq is because Saddam refused to
> follow the mandates set forth by the U.N.

Oh, right.  That's like saying a kid has a black eye because he refused to
do what his daddy told him... not because his daddy is an abusive
motherfucker.  Blame the victim.

> Well, they did die fighting capture. Of course if I knew that I would be
> put to death by the very people whom I had tortured then making a last
> stand wouldn't seem like such a bad idea.

If you assume guilt, you can come up with all kinds of justification.
That's why we civilized people follow the rule of law and not vigilantism.

> > You're just looking for reasons to believe the people of Iraq are not
> > trying to protect themselves from foreign occupation.  There is no
> > evidence of that.  It's all propaganda.
>
> Again, you really need to read a wider selection of news sources.

I read a fairly wide variety of news sources.  I see lots of CLAIMS
(almost exclusively in US publications), but no evidence.

> > And what is "the job" and WHY does it need to "get done"?
>
> Getting the infrastructure of Iraq up and running as quickly as possible
> is the job. Who else can you name to get it done? Maybe we should put
> the U.N. in charge and then it can be like Afghanistan. I would argue
> that the people there are in fact no better off now than when we ran the
> Taliban out.

Right... that's because there was no effort made by the principle
participants to restore any kind of workable government.  I mean, the
Northern Alliance?  They're CERTAINLY no better than the Taliban.

I think this is the absolutely best evidence we have that the Iraq
occupation is all about money.  There's no money to be made in
Afghanistan, so it was abandoned as soon as some money was spent and some
people were killed for the blood-thirsty, vengeance-filled media and
public.

> They know why they were hurting. Saddam.

They were doing quite well before the sanctions.

Saddam Hussein was a pretty bad guy, to be sure... but if you go back and
read the comments by the people of Iran and Kuwait (two nations actively
invaded by Saddam's armies) you'll find that they HATED Saddam, but
prefered him to U.S. occupation of their neighbor.

> > The people should be rebuilding it themselves so they don't come to
> > praise their oppressors out of misguided gratitude.
>
> And give the chance for another highly oppressive regime to take
> control?

And how is it that the United States CANNOT install an oppressive regime?

A leadership council was chosen with no public elections.  Work is being
done to create that government as we type, but the people are still
fighting in the streets.  There are no town hall meetings and no
introduction of democratic fora.  They are in the process of installing a
government that is not BY or OF the people and that means there is no
guarantee it is FOR the people.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org