52nd State

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by towny

Thanks for posting that, it was very interesting ... I'm waiting to see how Bush's critics in this forum answer the points it makes.

Yup.....I'm ducking for cover as we speak!



My main beef was with the way the stop the war movement is being run by communists, people need to know this. Bit like the CND in the 80's.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Yup.....I'm ducking for cover as we speak!

My main beef was with the way the stop the war movement is being run by communists, people need to know this. Bit like the CND in the 80's.

I'm in a real bind myself, I'm a pacifist because of my faith, but when I look at the Godless way the world carries on I can see the logic of Bush and Blair's approach to all this. I guess I'll prolly sit on the sidelines for this thread ... but as I said, I am very interested in how those who are so quick to conemn Bush answer the charge that they are therefore by default expressing support for a regime that has been digging mass graves all over Iraq.

Earlier in this thread dr wadd likened Bush to Hitler or Pol Pot. If I remember my history, both Pol Pot and Adolf Hitler indulged in mass slaughter and indeed the digging of mass graves. Against this measure, Bush is nothing like them ... but Saddam Hussein, whom he has removed from power, measures up very nicely.

[basa]

Originally Posted by towny

I'm in a real bind myself, I'm a pacifist because of my faith, .....

Unfortunately I tend to feel that pacifism and other similar attitudes (generically "do gooders" if you like) have in no small measure contributed to todays dangerous world.

As a child I was subject to corporal punishments at school and home, it taught me crime = punishment, not crime = get away with it because no one can touch me and I'll sue if they do.

Similarly, as the article previously points out, when the punishment threat is removed nationally or globally, the dictators move in and bully everyone.

The problem with that article in The Times is that on the surface a lot of it looks well argued. However, I fail entirely to see why the journalist felt the need to bring up connections with Communism. What it does do though is highlight this journalist's agenda, and just highlight the fact that his politics are clearly very right wing. After that bit of irrelevant rhetoric I see no worth in the rest of the article.

As for the earlier comment about UN resolutions having an expiry date, they do not, but the earlier UN resolutions did not mandate a military campaign. The terminology in these things can be obtuse at times, but it did not go that far.

As for US mandated mass slaughter, I only have to point to the no-fly zones in Iraq. These were never authorised by UN action, they were implemented by the US, UK and French. The French pulled out a long time ago, while the US and UK continued to patrol these areas and attack military targets within the borders of Iraq. Many people will have died in these attacks, yet they had no legitimacy under international law. I`m also in no way convinced that the US government was complicit in the attacks of 9/11, even if through merely turning a blind-eye for political gain, so that's almost another 3000 deaths on the hands of the US government.

As for the US not using suicide bombers, they just use more covert means to bring death and destruction for their own political ends. The US were responsible for the rise of power of General Pinochet and the suffering that caused. The US had a major part in putting Saddam Hussein into the position of power he was in before they decided they didn`t like him. The US illegally carpet bombed neutral countries during the Vietnam war just in case the enemy were there. No matter how much blood was on Saddam Hussein's hands, there is a lot more on the collective hands of the American people and their government.

Originally Posted by basa

Unfortunately I tend to feel that pacifism and other similar attitudes (generically "do gooders" if you like) have in no small measure contributed to todays dangerous world.

As a child I was subject to corporal punishments at school and home, it taught me crime = punishment, not crime = get away with it because no one can touch me and I'll sue if they do.

Similarly, as the article previously points out, when the punishment threat is removed nationally or globally, the dictators move in and bully everyone.

From the rest of your post I`m not so sure that the only lesson that you learned wasn`t simply that violence = power = control.

[Mark W]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

<snip>

interesting article, but it makes a big thing of who is leading the stop the war campaign. I dont CARE who is, could be lord sutch for all i care.
What their motivations for their protest are are of no concern to me. I dislike the thought of bush coming over here and expecting the country to bend to his whim and desire because I, ME, personally dont like it, not cos some communist hippy tells me not to like it.

tho the thing that i really dissagree with is

We are safer in Britain today than we were 27 months ago, thanks to him.

IRA aside (and thats died out now anyway), i dont remember tanks in heathrow, concrete barriers outside parliment, public announcements by MI5 that there is a very high risk of terror attack, the govt sealin off parts of london to do drills for chemical attacks since we went hand in hand with bush 'in defense of democracy' to fight the good fight againsed terrorism

Originally Posted by Mark W

IRA aside (and thats died out now anyway), i dont remember tanks in heathrow, concrete barriers outside parliment, public announcements by MI5 that there is a very high risk of terror attack, the govt sealin off parts of london to do drills for chemical attacks since we went hand in hand with bush 'in defense of democracy' to fight the good fight againsed terrorism

Well said. I fully agree, if we are at an increased risk now then it is purely because we have supported Bush's crusade to impose his view of democracy on the rest of the world. Leaving aside the issue of Iraq, Bush has now demanded that *all* middle-eastern states adopt a fully democractic government, with the implication that if they don`t then they better watch out. Is it any wonder that the US is so vilified by so many people around the world, and if we continue to be their poodle then we too will be dragged into the whole sorry mess.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Mark W

What their motivations for their protest are are of no concern to me. I dislike the thought of bush coming over here and expecting the country to bend to his whim and desire because I, ME, personally dont like it, not cos some communist hippy tells me not to like it.

I agree, I don't like it either.

Originally Posted by dr wadd

The problem with that article in The Times is that on the surface a lot of it looks well argued. However, I fail entirely to see why the journalist felt the need to bring up connections with Communism. What it does do though is highlight this journalist's agenda, and just highlight the fact that his politics are clearly very right wing. After that bit of irrelevant rhetoric I see no worth in the rest of the article.

So, you disagree with it because the journalist's right-wing agenda is different to your left-wing agenda. Fair enough. But what you have completely failed to do is address any of the facts raised in the article. You can't dismiss them simply because you don't like the politics of the person making them. Either his statements are true or they are false. If you believe them to be false, perhaps you could give some reasons?

Originally Posted by basa

Unfortunately I tend to feel that pacifism and other similar attitudes (generically "do gooders" if you like) have in no small measure contributed to todays dangerous world.

As a child I was subject to corporal punishments at school and home, it taught me crime = punishment, not crime = get away with it because no one can touch me and I'll sue if they do.

Similarly, as the article previously points out, when the punishment threat is removed nationally or globally, the dictators move in and bully everyone.

It's a mistake to equate pacifism with lack of willingness to impose discipline. You will find many Christians like myself find war abhorrent but are supportive of corporal punishment.

[downquark1]

The article was terrible 1st of all

It is immensely to President Bushâ₠¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s credit that he recognises weakness is more provocative than strength to those who live outside democracyââ‚ ¬â„¢s rules. We are safer in Britain today than we were 27 months ago, thanks to him.

Where is the proof we are safer. Now we have Iraqi terrriorists who now without a government will have no fear to attack us.

Sadam was a terrible man but the problems with the war were:

The government lied to the people about WOMD - how can we be a free democratic country if the government fills us with no just propa ganda but straight lies?

We accept we have no jurisdiction in iraq without UN support - what was the basis for war? Self defense from something we have no evidence off. We can't just attack a country because they may be a treat to us. This is enforcing your will and values and thus becoming a dictator/conquer yourself.

We do prefer that insane muderers do not run countries but who are we to say who is insane, and one system is democratic when one is not. Since we still have a monarchy tecnically in power we wouldn't grade as a US style democracy. If the queen decided to dissolved the government and take over the country will america attack us?

Originally Posted by downquark1

We do prefer that insane muderers do not run countries but who are we to say who is insane, and one system is democratic when one is not.

Agreed, we must be careful if tempted to try to occupy the moral high ground. But I can think of at least 300,000 people who would testify that Saddam is indeed insane and undemocratic. They'd speak up for themselves, but unfortunately they can't join us today because they are lying cold and dead in the mass graves Saddam had prepared for them.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by towny

Agreed, we must be careful if tempted to try to occupy the moral high ground. But I can think of at least 300,000 people who would testify that Saddam is indeed insane and undemocratic. They'd speak up for themselves, but unfortunately they can't join us today because they are lying cold and dead in the mass graves Saddam had prepared for them.

I thought the number was closer to 3000 000....

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by towny

So, you disagree with it because the journalist's right-wing agenda is different to your left-wing agenda. Fair enough. But what you have completely failed to do is address any of the facts raised in the article. You can't dismiss them simply because you don't like the politics of the person making them. Either his statements are true or they are false. If you believe them to be false, perhaps you could give some reasons?

Jolly good, I came back to address Dr Wadd's point to find you had already done so. Ta for that.

Originally Posted by towny

So, you disagree with it because the journalist's right-wing agenda is different to your left-wing agenda. Fair enough. But what you have completely failed to do is address any of the facts raised in the article. You can't dismiss them simply because you don't like the politics of the person making them. Either his statements are true or they are false. If you believe them to be false, perhaps you could give some reasons?

The assumption that people protesting are doing so simply because the West "won" the cold war is simply absurd. This ties into the previous statements that the journalist made, deriding the organisers communist beliefs. This journalist seems to have the very much mistaken belief that not wanting a war somehow equates to being a communist. With this kind of paranoid fear about "reds under the bed" it is little wonder that he sides so heavily with the pro-American camp.

He also seems, in my opinion, to be taking a stance that the only way of dealing with these situations is through the use of force. One thing I would like to stress is that I am not opposed to the use of a military solution per se, if done legally and responsibly, and I don`t believe either of those apply in the case of Iraq. But the attitude in that article seems to be entirely based around the concept that either we get them first or they get us. It doesn`t address the wider issue of why they hate us so much in the first place.

The simple matter is that the anti-communist rhetoric in the article, in my opinion, completely destroys any credibility the rest of the article had. He could have put across his points far more eloquently if he had simply stuck to the relevant facts.