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

alex alexlinux at qwest.net
Tue Dec 23 07:24:04 UTC 2003


On Mon, 2003-12-22 at 06:36, Jeme A Brelin wrote:
> Just a couple of interesting notes not covered elsewhere.
> 
> 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.
> 

Maybe they shouldn't have children then? Ever heard of a condom? It's a
lot cheaper than a child in the long term.


> 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.

Why should anyone be paid for sitting on they behind? If we did that the
next thing you know we'd have unemployment rates like that of many
European countries, +10% in many of them. I have always worked for what
I have. I have pride in the fact that I don't need to have a hand out
and, that no matter how bad it's been, I've never asked for one.

> 
> 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.

Ok then. I want you to put those words into action and vote for people
that will allow me the opportunity to practice self-determination
because right now I see the state and local govt's taking more and more
of my self-determination rights away from me as the federal tries to
give them back. When you vote for elected officials that will get the
heck out of my way so that I can follow my dreams and aspirations then I
will believe that you want everyone to have self-determination. Until
then, all I see from you and those that think like you is oppression and
the stripping of personal rights.
> 
> 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).

I think that there were many people living during Jefferson's time that
would say it was a very capitalistic time in the country's history.
>   Imposing
> punishment without due process of law is a violation of rights.

AH! I agree totally with you on this point. I would never want someone
to be convicted of a crime just because of skin color or financial
means. Mistakes do happen though, as unfortunate as that is, but our
system of justice does work very well. I would agree with you, however,
if you were to say that some laws needed to be changed and/or updated.
I doubt just that we would agree on which ones.
> 
> > 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 am pushing around no-one here Jeme. I was giving my opinion of what I
would rather do. It's just that your idea of right appears to be letting
people like Saddam have the run of the place.
> 

> 
> > 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?

We were attacked. More people died than at Pearl harbor. Maybe that was
a reason.
> 
> 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...

Why? Because you have a hard time defending people who will fly planes
into buildings and kill thousands of civilians?
> 
> I will write, however, that any ill will toward the United States is a
> direct result of U.S. imperialism.

Billions of dollars in foreign aid every year and they hate us for it?
Fine! I say we stop giving everyone, and I mean everyone, money. That
should really help to stem the tide of hate against us.

> 
> 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 you and I were raised on totally different moral systems. I was
raised to believe that killing people for the fun of it is wrong and
should be punished. Somehow I feel that you think as long as it's not
hurting you directly that it's ok for people to do what they want to do.
That bothers me.
> 
> > 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.

Prior to the Iraq-Iran war Iraq's standard of living was equal to and
even better than many of the other countries in the Middle East. Pardon
me for not clarifying better.
> 
> 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.

Great! Glad to see you are well read. Your views do seem inconsistent
with your reading though.

> 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.

Language please. Let's keep this a polite conversation.

Now, to answer your charge. If Saddam would have done as the World
Community had asked then Iraq could have once again become a prosperous
nation. Of course, Saddam could have used the money from the oil for
food program to do what he was supposed to do with it instead of build
palaces.

> 
> 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.

If I were an innocent man I don't think I would die fighting capture.
But hey, thats just me!

>  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.

The principal participants is the U.N. coalition. >U.N.< Highlight that
and study it. The U.N. is very arguably THE most corrupt governmental
body the world has ever know. It is driven by greed and led by thugs.
Sorry if you can't see that.
> 
> 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.

Wow and I figured that getting that pipeline we all heard about ran
across Afghanistan was a high priority. But hey, the bottom MUST have
fell out of that one so that's why everyone left. There was just no
money to be made by the U.N. The rotten skunks!
> 
> > 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?

Hey I think your right! Man, too bad Idi Amin wasn't still alive. Just
think what he could have done with a country like Iraq. Come on
everyone. We need to find someone who can be oppressive to run Iraq. I
think an ad in the newspaper might do it!
I just can't..I just can't.............even start......no.......
> 
> A leadership council was chosen with no public elections.

And elections will be held and those that are unfavorable will be voted
out by the general populus.
>   Work is being
> done to create that government as we type, but the people are still
> fighting in the streets.

Foreign fighters that have entered Iraq to kill anyone not Iraqi are
still the majority fighting.
>   There are no town hall meetings and no
> introduction of democratic fora.

This is not what I've been reading. They have been happening in those
areas not in the Sunni triangle.

>   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.

The election is coming. At least give them the chance to start
controlling their own destiny before you begin to decry the manner in
which they are getting there.
-- 
alex <alexlinux at qwest.net>





More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list