Interesting info on our leadership and those who oppose them

[Mikelly]

Well Said Aaron. I agree with you and 'Ole GW (That ain't Bush we're talking about folks...) 110%! Politics and parties SUCK!

 

Mike

[Guest livewire23]

well, i wont talk about how we acquired some of our states. (take a look at the takeover of hawaii sometime). Why do you think we manage to maintain a base in cuba that cannot be removed without mutual agreement between us and the cubans? Its not because the cubans really love us. Ok, now onto the filipino issue.

 

In 1896 the philipines fought a revolutionary war against the spanish, and the US was "kind" enough to back the filipinos up and help them gain their independence. In 1898 we gave the spanish 20 million dollars, and bought the philipines. The US forces at the time only controlled manila, but the deal with the spanish put all of the philipines in american possession. when we tried to control the rest of the country, the filipinas got mad, and hence the philipino-american war. this was the most dividing war in american history until vietnam, and within the US there was a great divide between imperialists (led in large part by media mogul hearst), and anti-imperialists. The philipines continued to be an american colony until WWII, when we ran away from the japanese, leaving many of our troops to be tortured and killed there. McArthur was living there with his family at the time, and barely escaped on a secret submarine. You can imagine how the filipinos felt about being abandoned.

 

I'm not very familiar with what happened in Nicaragua, the dominican republic, and cuba, but if you're curious, I'm sure I can dig up the information from my big folder of US history. Oh yea, and panama too.

 

The US has a history of keeping a very different kind of colony than the rest of the european powers. other than the philipines, our colonies were usually ran by "friendly leaders" who we just put our military might behind. This policy worked very well in our favor, because that way we didnt look like imperialists, since americans arent real fond of imperialists. Instead we just helped keep our friends in power, and took our enemies out of power. In the 60s we just let the CIA handle things, until the huge uproar that caused after the bay of pigs disaster. Interesting to notice that Saddam used to be one of our good friends. I'm not sure on this one, but I believe the guys in chile with the torture chambers were also friends of ours.

[pparaska]

Dustin Hoffman: "For me as an American' date=' the most painful aspect of this is that I believe that administration has taken the events of 9/11 and has manipulated the grief of the country and I think that's reprehensible." "I don't think, like many of us, that the reasons we have been given for going to war are the honest reasons." "I believe - though I may wrong because I am no expert - that this war is about what most wars are about: hegemony, money, power and oil".[/quote']

 

While I do not really agree with Dustin's opinion, I can respect him because his opinion is somewhat well thought out, and intelligently stated. Just as I can respect those on this forum who choose to make intelligent comments both for and against current world events.

 

Actually, since he's pulling the typical "oil" issue out and waving it, I feel his argument is NOT well thought out. He may have been somewhat articulate, but I think he's pulling the same old tired arguments out that don't fit.

 

What I find most disturbing with most of the protesters and most of the war supporters is the “us against them†attitude. Too many protesters continue to bring up the “stolen†election of 2000. It is evident that they are only protesting because their team is not currently in charge. A similar charge can be made for a large number of war supporters. The simply support the war because their team is in charge and wants it.

 

I agree with the former, but not the latter. Most of the people I've heard from or talked to that don't support the war give me either vapid or emotionally based reasons, and overlook the facts that make Saddam is so much like Hitler and Stalin. Most of the people I've heard from or talked to that do support the war give rational arguments. Not that there aren't protestors that have something rational to say or supporters that don't, but that has been my experience so far on the protestor/supporter thing. And I live in Liberal Maryland and watch the news casts and read a few papers (lately), so I get many points of view.

 

I also don't align myself with either party. I also vote based on the issues and agenda of particular poliiticians. Sometimes I vote for the Democrat, sometimes the Republican. I agree - don't follow the party line, that just makes you a lemming.

[Guest livewire23]

Alright, I just looked it up, indeed the CIA helped put pinochet in power. If you want to see a genuinely evil regime (similar in may way to iraq's) look up pinochet of chile. Downright scary stuff. Coincidently, september 11 is the anniversary of the coup that put pinochet in power. altogether, i think september 11 is just a bad day in history.

 

We also stampeded into mexico once, although that seems to me to have been less of an imperialistic action than our endeavours elsewhere.

 

And to answer your question about current possesions in S. America, we still have puerto rico. We've had it since the spanish-american war, and by now they seem pretty happy about it. nonetheless, it is a colony.

 

Aaron, I totally agree with you. Our beliefs may be different, but the logic structure seems to be the same. Its always interesting to see that some people can seem completely different, and yet be similar in many ways.

 

I should also point out that rumsfeld has met saddam before, in much more friendly times.

 

Rumsfeld’s December 19-20, 1983 visit to Baghdad made him the highest-ranking US official to visit Iraq in 6 years. He met Saddam and the two discussed “topics of mutual interest,†according to the Iraqi Foreign Ministry. “[saddam] made it clear that Iraq was not interested in making mischief in the world,†Rumsfeld later told The New York Times. “It struck us as useful to have a relationship, given that we were interested in solving the Mideast problems.â€

 

This was just before the use of chemical weapons against the iranians went public. shortly after, rumsfeld resigned. I recently heard an interview with rumsfeld about these proceedings, which I found quite interesting. He has quite a consistent perspective on the issue, and I believe at the time he felt it was in the US's best interest to be on iraq's side. At least he's not switching his point of view back and forth and denying the past.

 

For those interested, here is a slightly biased but very complete general history of US-Iraq relations.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/5076864.htm

 

An interesting point is how the gulf war arose

Still, Washington continued to hope that Saddam would become more moderate. In the summer of 1990, when the dictator met with U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie, Glaspie told him the United States had "no opinion" about Arab border disputes. A week later, Iraq invaded Kuwait. The United States withdrew its diplomats from Baghdad in January 1991.

[pparaska]

Yep, we have put a bunch of people into power that turned out to be not-so-nice. The Shah of Iran had a secret police as well...

 

It'll be interesting to see what happens in Afghanistan and then in Iraq after the war. Whenever we mess around with a third world country's governmental structure (even just taking out the present regime), the people who replace it never seem to be ideal - often far from it. Alas, it's not a perfect world.

[Guest livewire23]

Alas, it's not a perfect world.

yep.

[Pop N Wood]

And to answer your question about current possesions in S. America, we still have puerto rico. We've had it since the spanish-american war, and by now they seem pretty happy about it. nonetheless, it is a colony.

 

Nice try. Not really part of South America and I think you would be in for a fight if you told someone from Puerto Rico they were an American “colony”. They have their own elected government and regularly vote down becoming a US state. I guess they prefer the tax benefits of being a common wealth and exercising the right to self determination.

 

And I am still waiting to see the list of all the land we currently posses in the Philippines. Note the word "currently". By the way, we didn't "run away" from the Japanese, abandoning our troops. They kicked our asses. Give credit where credit is due. Mc Arthur left on a PT boat because he was ordered to.

 

Why do you think we manage to maintain a base in cuba that cannot be removed without mutual agreement between us and the cubans? Its not because the cubans really love us.

 

Perhaps because the sovereign government of Cuba signed an agreement with us? Who, by the way, did love us at the time.

[Guest livewire23]

ah, I was wondering how long it would take before someone tried to rip me up. Like I said, PR is quite happy about their situation now. Yes, I pulled out some pretty ancient history that is fairly irrlevent, but it seemed to me that powell was trying to claim something that's just not true.

 

Excuse me about the philipines. I should've known better. Credit where credit is due. Regardless, they were a colony. I wasn't trying to say anything about the character of McArthur, just stating the facts that he left. I realize he was under orders. Seems like sensible orders to me too.

 

Whether the cubans loved us or not, I'll never know. But we had quite a bit of influence in that government, influence enough that we would've had the base whether or not they loved us. Kinda like how we got hawaii.

 

furthermore, I do believe I've been careful not to claim we had evil intentions in iraq. I'll have to go back through and re-read my posts, but I don't think I at any time said we definately should not be in iraq, or that I know we are there for the wrong reasons. I must re-iterate, I've no idea whats really goin on there. I try not to make too many decisions about things I don't know about.

 

I'm surprised I haven't brought up slavery too. And every other racist issue I could bring into it. j/k

 

By the way, I'm not trying to bash the USA. I just think there is more history that is conveniently neglected. There have also been many great things the US has done, but I'd say they are flaunted enough that I need not repeat them here without being repetative.

 

don't bring kosovo into this. I know zilch about kosovo. I didnt follow that conflict at all. All I know is that it seems like it turned out well. As for what I feel we should do in Iraq, gimme a second and I'll get back to you on that. If I can think of a good solution, I'll make sure to submit it to my representatives too. I'm in the midst of talking to a friend at the moment, I can't think and talk all at once.

[jeromio]

That is an excellent George Washington quote. I'm not a big history guy - didn't realize GW was so articulate. I'm registered Independent. Don't see why everyone isn't - especially in NC. Each election, I get to pick which primary I want to vote in. In 2000 I asked for a Rep ballot so I could vote for McCain. In 02 I asked for a Dem ballot so I could vote for Blue (Dole was a lock, didn't like her or her fellow carpet bagger Bowles). It's a great setup.

 

That's also a pretty good Dustin Hoffman quote. Really, really didn't think he was all that sharp. He must've been drunk for the Grammy's.

 

And does anyone honestly think that this Iraq situation is not driven by oil? Even if this goes well and the US gets nothing tangible of benefit (Halliburton contracts notwithstanding), except for the receipts for 100s of billions on the war and the rebuild (which we will have to foot entirely), we will still benefit TREMENDOUSLY. The theory is that a stable Iraq will participate in the world economy and bring it's oil production up - way up. The Saudis are very shrewd and have armies of economists and diplomats in an attempt (mostly successful) to set oil prices at just the right level to maximize their income. (this is not a bad thing at all, but that's a separate discussion). An oil producing Iraq (with lots of new equipment and infrastructure) will need money. Lots of money. They will set the price accordingly. They will max out supply and prices will fall.

 

500 billion dollar tax cut? Heh - that is NOTHING compared to a $5-10/barrel drop in the price of oil. Right now there is minimal output from Iraq. It's an untapped supply. Bush feels that bringing that supply to the world will boost the economy tremendously - and it will. I just can't help thinking that these plans are not going to unfold the way this administration thinks they will. And alot of good people are going to get killed.

 

(And if anyone thinks my being a pessimist in this situation makes me anti-USA or unAmerican, well, all I can say is Right back at ya. And damn, I can't believe I am posting in here on this subject, but this is really a pretty good thread.)

[Guest livewire23]

way to take some heat off me jeromio... I'd like to see this discussion stay civilized in the interest of not getting it shut down. Perhaps I said some things I shouldn't have. I'm still trying to figure out what the best solution for the problem would be. when I come up with it, plan on voting for me on the next ballot.

[Guest ProfessorRog]

When I spoke of the council containing the philosopher's as described by Plato, the UN would not really relate due to the way Plato describes his ideal philosopher/gaurdian. The UN is a council of separate countries fighting to convince each other that their national ideals are how humanity will prosper and progress correctly, whereas the council of which I spoke would contain an objective "elite" stripped of its pomp and circumstance and rage of distinction that leads to such pain and suffering. This council would not be interested in the simple pleasures of "I am better than you" or "My way is better than yours"; this silly desire to appear greater than your fellow man would be a foreign idea to them. They could not consider how their actions would benefit themselves because they could receive no benefits from other countries rather living a simple life dedicated to the research of humanity's actions and how best to balance the intellectual and emotional aspects of the human mind while increasing the ability of mankind to spread out across the expanse of space. (I may be wrong in my interpretation of Plato's philosopher/gaurdian somone please correct me if so)

 

This council would be the "Supreme Court" of the world. They would decide whether the actions of a ruler or state we're deemed in opposition to the betterment of humanity. The actual implementation of such a device eludes me so far; either way it is idealistic wishful thinking since men will hold on to the comfort in power more dearly than anything in life and the thought of being subject to the decisions of the "Intellectual Amish" probably wouldn't go over very well with those among us dedicated to the love of self.

 

The function of a state is to ensure the survival and progression of humankind and Saddam is in dire opposition to this concept. To say we need to liberate these simple folk is incorrect in my view, rather we need to ensure the possible contribution to humanity that the people of Iraq and their descendants could provide.

 

We have war because we have injustice.

[Guest livewire23]

I think the hard part of implementing such an idea wouldnt be finding the men and establishing the counsel itself, but empowering the counsel. Ever noticed how weak the world courts are? Not to mention how poorly most of the predecessors to the UN performed.

 

Indeed, if any one country furnished the army to back the counsel up, they'd have a distinct advantage. If there were no army, well, we all know how well the world respects a lack of an army. And coalition armies dont seem much better. Obviously the most powerful of the coalition forces could go off on its own agenda if they disagreed with the other members. The tough part is not finding the words, but finding the power to back the words. power corrupts. absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[Moridin]

I felt the need to chime in here. I'm taking an international relations class right now and it has gotten really interesting. I definitely have learned a lot. Well, here it goes.

 

First, for those of you that claim we are over there solely for Iraqi liberation, look at the facts. We've supported oppresive regimes around the world as long as they go along with our policies. Who put Saddam in power? Who supported him for years while killied his own people? Who gave him the weapons and technology to do most of this? As long as he did what our government said, it kept feeding him weapons and money. I find this rather unerving that we only gave him a slap on the wrist after he released those weapons on his own people. This also hold true for the regimes in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the Taliban in Afghanistan, etc... Don't forget that the U.S. also trained Osama and many others. Its a lovely idea that the Iraqi's will be free and operate under a demcratic government after this is all over. I'm all for it, but I don't think this the number one reason we're over there. Seems more like rhetoric than an actual objective when looking at our track record over the years. Then again, I truly hope the people there will lead better lives after all this is over. I highly doubt it though.

 

Now, for those of you arguing this is part of the fight against terrorism, why are we still supporting the Saudis? How many Saudis were on those planes during the 9/11 attacks? 15. 15 is a lot. If you look, you can trace that back to the Wahabbi extremists operating under the Saudi royal family. This extremist sect of Islam funds poor areas of the surrounding region and draws in those that have very little. Someone with no money, no food, barely getting by is most definitely going to join a group that will feed and teach him. They claim to train these men in the Koran and teach them to read, yet those newly founded members are often sent to military camps for weapons and battle strategy training. It truely doesn't matter who gives these terrorist weapons, because if Iraq didn't somone else will. I have yet to see in damning evidence against Iraq stating they have given weapons to any terrorist. When I do, I will eat by words. Back to my point though. Get to this terrorism by getting to the root of the problem and Iraq isn't. I say start giving aid and teaching these extremely poor areas in northern Africa and other regions surrounding Saudi Arabia. People that have food and are educated will be much less likely to join these extremists groups. Push this education closer and closer to Saudi land, eventually eliminating the problem.

 

Now for the oil for blood problem. I do believe oil is part of the plan. Look what companies were awarded contracts for oil operations in Iraq. They are subsidiary companies of Halliburton. Guess Dick Cheney still has a little interest in making sure his old company gets the goods. For those of who want to take a look at the wonderful things Halliburton and Cheney have done, check out this link: http://www.corpwatch.org/news/PND.jsp?articleid=713

They could have at least waited a few weeks or month to mask the fact. Guess they didn't want to be shy that Cheney looks to make millions off of this. A little disconcerting that human lives have to be lost for one man to make a buck. I'm not stating this as the sole reason for U.S. action, but I bet it has been a big helping factor in decision making.

 

When the UN passed the resolution 12 years ago, or however many years it was, that Iraq should disarm they should have stuck with it. The situation has only escalated (must be coincidence, but when I checked the spelling on dictionary.com I got this definition and example: To increase, enlarge, or intensify: escalated the hostilities in the Persian Gulf. ) since that time. The sanctions should have been lifted a long time ago too, because that did nothing more than weaken the poor citizens already being oppressed by Saddam. Again, I believe Iraq should have been taken care of years ago, but now we are stuck dealing with it. I just believe our government is taking the wrong actions.

 

Military operations against Iraq are only going to heighten our problem with terrorism and the current domestic economic state. I hope that this all turns out fine, the Iraqi people have better lives as a result, and the other horrible regimes in the area are taken down by some sort of revolution. I hope in my heart of hearts. As much as I hope, I don't believe it will happen.

 

We will see what unfolds in the weeks and months that come.[/i][/url]

[Pop N Wood]

Guess I got a little personal in past posts. Sorry for that. Sincerely. My wife says I just like to argue too much. Believe it or not I know my opinion is worth no more or less than anyone else’s. This has been one of the more intelligent opinion threads I have seen on the war.

 

But, as said many times in this thread, I can't get over how some people (not necessarily people in this thread) talk about this country like we can't do anything right. We get blasted for nation building and supporting dictatorial regimes, and then we get blasted for doing nothing against Korea and India/Pakistan (which BTW is not true). We fight two world wars only gaining enough territory to "bury our dead", but now we are being accused of hegemony in Iraq. We go into places like Kosovo and Somalia, in the one case to try and end a pattern of genocide not seen since the holocaust, and everyone ignores us. Yet when we go into Iraq to try and dispose of a dictator everyone in the world seems to agree is bad, we get accused of doing it only for financial gain. Lets face it, we have F'd ourselves in the eyes of every Arab state (except maybe Kuwait) and have probably killed any hope of continuing with NATO and maybe even the UN. We will be paying for this for decades to come. The down payment on this war is going to cost us 6 times the annual defense budget of India, yet some how or the other people are talking about us like we are rich pigs sitting back counting all the money we will make. It also just kills me how people constantly accuse of putting this or that dictator in power. If we are so powerful and so capable at putting people "in power", then why are we having so much trouble disposing of this street thug turned Grand Poohbah running Iraq?

 

One last thing. I think people have not only a right but an obligation to stand up and be counted when they see the country going in a direction they don't agree with. To do anything less would be un American. But remember two things: there are rarely simple answers to complex problems and we live in pluralistic society. Just like the cause of this war cannot be summed up on an antiwar sign, there is no solution that will please everyone. The time for bitching and finger pointing are over. We are in this now and the only thing for us to do is pull together as a nation and try to get it over with as quickly and as painlessly as possible.

[Mikelly]

Jim, I agree with you on soooo many levels. Our country, although not PERFECT, is still the best in the world. Sometimes our leadership is shortsided. I liked Clintons Economic stance nationally, but hated his international policy, and quite frankly I took it personal when he got on TV and lied about Monica and sex. Bush has strong international stances, which I personally like, but his economic stance here at home isn't great. Coupled with the crappy hand he was dealt with this four year term, we won't truly get to see what he is or isn't capable of this term due to the attacks, impact to economy by the attacks, and the war.

 

Speak out, support a candidate, Hell even protest. Just do it with a WELL INFORMED ton of research in your back pocket. You don't want to be caught on film like the earlier examples shown in this thread.

 

Free speech is something people have died for. It is a right we should ALL exercise with pride, and with that supreme sacrefice made by others in mind. My only recommendation in doing so is to research and NOT to allow the liberal press to bait and hook you into their machine of mis-information.

 

Overall this has been a very healthy and positive discussion about a very emotionally charged topic.

 

Mike

[Guest Aaron]

To continue with what Mike says. When you speak out, protest, etc. please remember that even though we have free speach, there are still laws which govern our actions. Most places require permits for you to block roads, or congregate in large numbers. Don't protest for peace claiming an illegal war while you are illegally blocking traffic and attacking the police who are trying to control the situation. Do not contradict and discredit yourselves by picking and choosing the laws you obey and the application of your beliefs.

 

Jeromio, George wasn't really that articulate. I got the quote here. Appearantly, that speach was his beliefs, but was revised and edited by some of the best writers of the day. If you want to hear a truly great speaker, writer, and president, read some of Abe Lincoln's stuff.

[Guest livewire23]

jim, as much as it may not sound like it, i agree with you on much of the things you listed. The US in the past has many times reached beyond its own borders to settle conflicts in a very unselfish manner. I just felt that it was a bit unfair to list all the times that we have acted with such valour, without mentioning the other times, when we were acting in our own self-interests. I think we're ignoring large chunks of history if we say that the US has never fought a war in its own self-interests. Just like it would be narrow-minded to say every war we've fought was about oil. I like to argue too man, I know how ya feel. I know my posts have been real biased against the US, but that's only because I think the US has been fairly well represented by others, and I was trying to supply a balancing factor. It doesnt mean that I dont agree with many of the pro-US things that have been said.

 

I agree with the oil issues at least as far as to say the following. While oil may not have been the major motivating factor for going into iraq, the administration would've had to be extremely blind not to have in the back of their minds that if we do this, the new administration will share the oil, and prices will go down. I mean, bush and cheney are both oil men. I'm sure they're totally aware of the effect that open iraqi oil fields would have on the US economy.

 

I'm not trying to start a fight here, but could someone list the atrocities that Iraq has actually committed in the past 12 years? I understand he's been killing and torturing his own people. Is it known approximately how many of his people he's killed? Also, has he been an aggressor towards any of his neighbours since kuwait? This is not an argument against war, I just want to be mre informed.

[Guest ProfessorRog]

livewire- read the latest newsweek, they have a pretty good article on Saddam and his henchmen

[Mikelly]

Livewire, Also do a search on the world Human rights and humanitarian relief efforts in Iraq. Saddam has a reputation of getting loyalty through execution. It is also reported that he gains sexual gratefication from watching video taped executions that he has ordered and or participated in. This same man has executed relatives and inlaws.

 

In the 80's he used chemical weapons on the Iranians, but we didn't make to much of it since we were enemies of the Iranians at the time. The Kurds have always been an easy target for him. He used chemical & biological weapons on the US lead coalition in the first war.

 

Now, If you missed the weight of what I just typed, re-read it again. I'm not making these claims up. There is a ton documented proof that this man is a murderer.

 

...Give Peace a Chance??

!

!

!

!

No. I say with WAR will come PEACE!

Mike 8)

[Guest bang847]

Lets not weigh the past of America as a indicator of US intentions.

I don't say this as a cop-out but more to empahise that America is ever-changing.

America was built on principles not absolutes.

Sure mistakes has been made in the past but you know what?

We have learned from them!

 

On the other hand look at Iraq.

Nothing has changed. Same leadership (if I can even call it that) same results.

 

Well.. something to think about...