The US has launched pre-emptive wars and attacks in 1776, 1846, 1861, 1898, 1899, 1903, 1909, 1914, 1916, 1919, 1958, 1965, 1986, 1989, 1992, 1994, and 2003. I will leave it up to you all to understand and learn what each of these dates tie back do (do it, you may accidently learn some actual history). Are you saying that after 200 years, the US has been a stabilizing influence on the world, or a de-stabilizing influence? As a whole. 30 years of the world doing the absolute least it could let Saddam live like the Sun King (on accurate copes of that furniture, even). Your methods failed, as you try to apply westernized rules of law and morality to a dictatorship that doesn't care what you think.
The precedent that was just set is that if you run a horrible dictatorship, attempt to permanently occupy your neighbors, and threaten the US and its allies, you will be dismantled. It is the only lesson that a dictator cares about - certainly not western teenagers protesting their human rights violations. Their lives are shaped by force, and force is what they comprehend.
Protesting and civil disobedience only work in countries where the law and government is already in good shape. In a dictatorship, they find it a joke and ignore it, or violently quell it. The same way they ignore economic sanctions, embargoes, political expulsion, and the rest. I again point you to the several dozen of Saddam's palaces that were built and furnished AFTER the country was embargoed and previous UN inspectors were uncovering 4000 tons of post-1991 manufactured Sarin nerve gas, for example.
Again (and I'm sorry to bash on about it) why not let the UN weapons inspectors complete their job? We'll never know if they would have uncovered any WMD, or even weapons of light destruction.
As for the US being a stabilising influence, I presume you're looking at it from the US perspective? Ask if the US has been a stabilising influence any of the stabilised countries. By simple dint of having more resources the US can "stabilise" any number of smaller, weaker nations who can "threaten" them. The problem with preemptive strikes is that you never know what would have happened if you hadn't launched them...and no I'm not suggesting that the US or any other nation should let itself be a target just so it can have evdience of intent. The victory writes history, and lo it was a protective preemptive strike. Long live the new status quo.
You'd be a fool to try to suggest that the US would seek to be anything other than the only world superpower, and sure, that puts them in a precarious and highly responsible position. I'd also suggest you were a fool if you suggested that the majority of "stabilising" had anything to do with anything other than enlightened self interest. (I'll concede that the US, a country that has never fought a war on its own shores might be overly concerned about security).The majority of these stabilisations are politically motivated, and nothing more. Its the same with the Falklands, was it a coincidence that Britain moved its defenses away from the island at the same time as Argentina was making noise about sovereignty and Thatcher was the lowest she ever was in popularity polls, just before a general election? Probably not. We then had the luxury of "liberating" "destabilising" invaders as a justification. Its too much of a coincidence for an old cynic like me.
Similarly :The US, a hugely petroleum dependent economy decides to switch to a war footing and "liberate" an oil bearing nation just as is it's about to slide into a recession? However noble you believe Mr Bush is, doesn't it strike you as suspicious? Not even a little? Not even considering there were already the mechanisms in place and in progress to "liberate" the country under a flag of international unity? Not even considering it represented a nice soft target in the "war on terror" - a war that can't be conducted nation to nation (beacause terror has no home) whereas Iraq appears solid and real on the map? Not even considering Bush's popluarity rating was at its lowest point after failing to locate Bin Laden?
Again I have to state that I am pro Saddam removal. I am pro launching pre-emptive strikes when necessary. The coincidences and choices pursued by Bush leave me with little choice to conclude that far from "stabilising" Iraq, the US was seeking to guarantee a source of fuel and a nice easy target to win a palpable victory against. That, in my book is called an invasion, and is precisely what Saddam tried to do in annexing Kuwait. I am fortunate in that I can happily agree that the war was justified should any evidence emerge, and still be right about the way it was conducted. If it turns out that Saddam was (in his own way, and time) complying with resolution 1441, then I'm afraid the pro war camp can only be wrong. Bang on about human rights abuse as much as you like. There are bigger, and more pressing targets that could have been addressed (Israel, Palestine, Turkey, China......etc). Unfortunately these wouldn't have given up any petrol or an easy solution. Was the war about WMD, sponsoring terror, politically liberating Iraq, or returning the control of oilfields to the people? I forget which is the current one <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
We are now at a crossroads, not just in the larger context of "what now" with regards to international relations and the world order, but on a more immediate scale in Iraq. How will the war be remembered, a liberation, or a raid? I'd like to think that the truth (and again I can't say what that is) will out. Sadly I'm reminded about sayings no the first casualties of war, and another about who writes history......
<!--QuoteBegin--[tbZ]BeAst+Apr 10 2003, 02:47 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([tbZ]BeAst @ Apr 10 2003, 02:47 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> There's my first problem right there. You now have a percentage of burgulars, rapists, murders, wife beaters etc (see I can be emotive too!) wandering the "liberated" streets of Baghdad. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe that the only ones that weren't shot were in the Baath party, who were probably already "wandering the streets of Baghdad". In Iraq, you can get shot for watching the wrong TV station. Saddam administered an effective, if brutal, police state. After all, this is the man who modeled himself after Stalin.
Well at least the cosmic order has been restored, Monse and I are back to disagreeing again <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The precedent that was just set is that if you run a horrible dictatorship, attempt to permanently occupy your neighbors, and threaten the US and its allies, you will be dismantled.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Man, China must be shaking in their shoes. If I was the premier of China I'd be cleaning my act up right now because I'd be looking skywards for the B-52s. And I can just see North Korea buckling under as we speak. (de-activate sarcasm)
The fact is, and this ties in with an earlier point I made perhaps in another thread, that the US won't apply this stratagy of "dictatorship overthrow" to all the dictatorships of the world. 1 reason would be some of these dictatorships are too powerful. Another would be that some dictatorships (looking at YOU Gulf States) are actively supported by the US. So, it's ok for Saudi Arabia to run a nigh medieval system of government and human rights in it's country, but Iraq cannot? If you're going to use the arguement that removing a dictator is grounds enough for war then it must be applied everywhere. The impression I get from your statement is that it's ok to be a dictatorship, even a horrible one, as long as you don't invade your neighbours or threaten the US. Maybe I got it wrong and just one of those prerequisites is enough for the tanks to start rolling. If it IS then half the world is up for invasion; there's few nations on earth that do not as of now occupy lands that were previously their neghbours'.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It is the only lesson that a dictator cares about - certainly not western teenagers protesting their human rights violations. Their lives are shaped by force, and force is what they comprehend.
Exactly! Now what the US has done is gone and proven this to these dictatorships: might makes right, if you're strong enough you can get away with whatever you want. look at the differance in the US approach to Iraq and North Korea. the US backs way away from even suggesting using military force against North Korea, despite the North Korean regime being at least as bad as Saddam, and probably a great deal worse. What do these dictators see? North Korea has nukes, this is what prevents a US attack. You say they understand force, this is correct. They are now seeing that with enough force, one can be immune to attack.
I'd reply to the pre-emptive strike historical examples but that would start a whole new thread <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> However, wouldn't Japan's attack on Pearl Harbour be considered a legitimate pre-emptive strike?
'Geopolitics not black and white. It's not as simple as you all want it to be. It's shades of grey, and circumstantial.'
I've replied to your points many times already. Use search, or post something new for me, please. For now, I'll ask for examples of dictatorships that were toppled without violence (although maybe Nem will want this into a new topic - pretty far off my original one at this point folks). I am seeking enlightenment...
You are correct Monse, I won't deny that the world can't be seen in pure shades of black and white. What applies to one nation can change for another, I've just found it to be highly hypocritical for the US to oppose dictatorships in some areas and support them right next door.
All I'm saying is that dictatorships arn't just going to go away, nor will the US actively seek to remove them.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->although maybe Nem will want this into a new topic - pretty far off my original one at this point folks<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do as you wish - honestly, I doubt that the initial topic still serves very much of a discussion hook, because nobody disagrees that the freeing of tortured prisoners is a good thing. The real discussion - whether this was truly the right way of helping human rights along - is more abstract and would in my opinion burst the frame of this thread anyway.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Protesting and civil disobedience only work in countries where the law and government is already in good shape. In a dictatorship, they find it a joke and ignore it, or violently quell it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry to beat one of my favorite dead horses here, but there is an example I have personal experience, which you value so much, with: The GDR. Believe me, law and government were in <i>no</i> good shape there - it was one of the last two stalinist countries left on the planet (the second one being North Korea), after all. The GDR featured the secondmost effective secret service of the world, the Stasi ('Staatsicherheit'), which had the most closely knit surveilance system ever deviced (the house we bought when moving to Saxony was later discovered to be bugged from roof to basement), some of the worst prisons you could ever be brought to (in the 50s and 60s, some prisoners were forced to stand in ankle-deep cold water for days on end, to name one example), the army was considered better and more disciplined than the Soviet army itself, and the leaders... Well, let's just say that they weren't exactely saints, either. Yet, today, we have one Germany, and I can't remember any military strikes around here... There <i>are</i> alternatives to armed interventions. They only don't have some hundred thousands of corpses to back their effectiviness up, which leads many people to believe that they're unrealistic. Surely, freedom can't have such a 'low' price, can it?
Sorry, Nem but you have oversimplified. There was plenty of violence. 50 years of violence along the berlin wall. Violence between the various east and west secret service agencies. A million armed men on the western side of the line, showing implied violence if the eastern block did anything funny. The threat of violence from the US and British army in berlin (I purposely exclude the French out of mean spiritedness) if it were to be attacked. The threat of violence in escorting fighter planes that watched over cargo planes during the berlin airlift. Just because at the very END of 50 years of various kinds of violence undermining a dictatorship was accomplished without a rifle doesn't mean that everyone was standing on the wall with pickaxes out of sheer goodwill.
Without the threat of violence, it's fairly likely that the warsaw pact would have extended all the way to portugal. What else do you think kept the Russians at bay when stalin, krushchev, and the rest of the real wackos were in power in the 40's, 50's, and 60's?
<!--QuoteBegin--[tbZ]BeAst+Apr 10 2003, 02:47 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ([tbZ]BeAst @ Apr 10 2003, 02:47 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Returning to the original post....
I'm with MonsE here, please try to consider what it must be like. Held in inhumane conditions. Denied access to your family and friends. Denied access to a lawyer, or fair trial. Even denied a legal status! Carted around on trailers in cages in the heat of Cuba.....oh hang on I'm thinking about the "illegal combatants" of Guantanamo bay! Oopsie!
(yet another serious point disguised as frippery)
I'm categorically against MonsE for a change, and I think I can quitre safely argue it without sounding like a monster.
As I see it, you can subdivide the prisoners into 2 categories initially: Those found guilty of the crimes they were imprisoned for, and those imprisoned for "political reasons". There's my first problem right there. You now have a percentage of burgulars, rapists, murders, wife beaters etc (see I can be emotive too!) wandering the "liberated" streets of Baghdad. Hurrah for freedom! Given the choice of having a few days extra freedom, or waiting for due process to free them, I'd imagine even the political prisoners would elect to remain in a coallition administered prison, rather than have genuinely guilty people roaming the streets.
If you want to talk about inhumane treatment of prisoners, there are only 3 nations in which the lawful execution of children is carried out. Iraq is one. The US is another. Let he who is without sin.....
I particularly liked the picture at the end. I won't cast aspersions on the guy holding up the ID card, but I will ask why it was there. Children torturing? Evidence in a murder case? A missing person report? A seized forged document?
I'm sure we can all agree that the regime was not the most ethical. However, what impression would an execution chamber in a federal penitentuary give? I don't know about the circumstances the prisoners were kept in. Neither do you. The only ones that do, are the guards and the prisoners themselves. I'm fairly sure that human rights were abused, and torture carried out. Unfortunately I can't say for sure. Lets try (however hard) to keep an open mind. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I did try to answer the original with this ^^^^
I don't think you've answered that one yet. I'm happy to move on from it though....
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Sorry, Nem but you have oversimplified. There was plenty of violence. 50 years of violence along the berlin wall. Violence between the various east and west secret service agencies. A million armed men on the western side of the line, showing implied violence if the eastern block did anything funny. The threat of violence from the US and British army in berlin (I purposely exclude the French out of mean spiritedness) if it were to be attacked. The threat of violence in escorting fighter planes that watched over cargo planes during the berlin airlift. Just because at the very END of 50 years of various kinds of violence undermining a dictatorship was accomplished without a rifle doesn't mean that everyone was standing on the wall with pickaxes out of sheer goodwill.
Without the threat of violence, it's fairly likely that the warsaw pact would have extended all the way to portugal. What else do you think kept the Russians at bay when stalin, krushchev, and the rest of the real wackos were in power in the 40's, 50's, and 60's?
I await your reply.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now you're overcomplicating my statement. Of course, there <i>was</i> violence - the inner-German border was quite possibly the hottest cold conflict zone in history, and the option of a violent solution did of course always play a major role in the development of the issue, much as the constant bombing by allied forces since 1991 played a role in pre-war Iraq.
This does however not change a thing about the fact that the eastern German population (which sucks as much as every other large group of people I've encountered thus far) managed to come to a peaceful solution <i>despite</i> the heated situation, which was doubtlessly at least as full of 'potential' violence as the pre-war Iraq. You made the statement that demonstrations and civil disobedience never helped against a dictatorship - the GDR ended thanks to demonstrations and public disobedience. I do not neglect the militaric situation of the Cold War (which I'd happily discuss with you in a seperate topic, because I feel it's critical for the understanding of current events).
There are plenty of examples throughout history of dictatorships that have fallen through economic pressures rather than violence, although not many in recent times. I'd hold up the British Empire (funny how that keeps cropping up too) as an example. Although it was as bloody as any other during its rule, its collapse was internal, we couldn't afford its upkeep. As a result, nations were handed back their own sovereignty (although initially nominally under Comissioners). The rollback is, I would argue, the perfect example of non violent collapse. The empire as a whole didn't necesarily fall this way, but there are definitely nations that could claim the peaceful handover.
In answer to your last post, I'll quote Starship Troopers, and one of my favourite quotes of all time "All authority derives, ultimately, from the threat of force". Whether the violence is overt, or implied, its not just dictatorships that hold power like that. Civil disobedience is crushed by armed police (g7 demonstrations, anti-war demonstrations, kyoto protests). Once a government is elected, its free to ignore its manifesto promises, and (checks and balances permitting) pass any unmandated laws it likes. The people have no recourse except demonstation, or electing new representatives in 4 years time. So I guess we're kind of in agreement on this one <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
I kinda agree with Monse on this one. What else is new? :-P
I think the real Iraq issue is, 'Do you trust Bush?'. If you don't, you buy into the theories of War for Oil, doing this for his dad, the elimination of civil liberties, new imperialism, etc.
Call me naive, but I trust Bush and the information he's presenting about WMDs; I admit freeing the Iraqis is an added bonus.
Nem- Whats your opinion of the Saddam statue coming down yesterday? I was too young at the time, but I've been told it was a very 'Berlin Wall' atmosphere. Any comments, you being German an all.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I was five at the time <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
-_-
Now I just feel old and depressed and don't want to talk about it anymore...
No wonder I have so much trouble convincing Nem of the power of liberation... I was about to go into the Marine Corps, and he was about to go into kindergarten...
Comments
The precedent that was just set is that if you run a horrible dictatorship, attempt to permanently occupy your neighbors, and threaten the US and its allies, you will be dismantled. It is the only lesson that a dictator cares about - certainly not western teenagers protesting their human rights violations. Their lives are shaped by force, and force is what they comprehend.
Protesting and civil disobedience only work in countries where the law and government is already in good shape. In a dictatorship, they find it a joke and ignore it, or violently quell it. The same way they ignore economic sanctions, embargoes, political expulsion, and the rest. I again point you to the several dozen of Saddam's palaces that were built and furnished AFTER the country was embargoed and previous UN inspectors were uncovering 4000 tons of post-1991 manufactured Sarin nerve gas, for example.
As for the US being a stabilising influence, I presume you're looking at it from the US perspective? Ask if the US has been a stabilising influence any of the stabilised countries. By simple dint of having more resources the US can "stabilise" any number of smaller, weaker nations who can "threaten" them. The problem with preemptive strikes is that you never know what would have happened if you hadn't launched them...and no I'm not suggesting that the US or any other nation should let itself be a target just so it can have evdience of intent. The victory writes history, and lo it was a protective preemptive strike. Long live the new status quo.
You'd be a fool to try to suggest that the US would seek to be anything other than the only world superpower, and sure, that puts them in a precarious and highly responsible position. I'd also suggest you were a fool if you suggested that the majority of "stabilising" had anything to do with anything other than enlightened self interest. (I'll concede that the US, a country that has never fought a war on its own shores might be overly concerned about security).The majority of these stabilisations are politically motivated, and nothing more.
Its the same with the Falklands, was it a coincidence that Britain moved its defenses away from the island at the same time as Argentina was making noise about sovereignty and Thatcher was the lowest she ever was in popularity polls, just before a general election? Probably not. We then had the luxury of "liberating" "destabilising" invaders as a justification. Its too much of a coincidence for an old cynic like me.
Similarly :The US, a hugely petroleum dependent economy decides to switch to a war footing and "liberate" an oil bearing nation just as is it's about to slide into a recession? However noble you believe Mr Bush is, doesn't it strike you as suspicious? Not even a little? Not even considering there were already the mechanisms in place and in progress to "liberate" the country under a flag of international unity? Not even considering it represented a nice soft target in the "war on terror" - a war that can't be conducted nation to nation (beacause terror has no home) whereas Iraq appears solid and real on the map? Not even considering Bush's popluarity rating was at its lowest point after failing to locate Bin Laden?
Again I have to state that I am pro Saddam removal. I am pro launching pre-emptive strikes when necessary. The coincidences and choices pursued by Bush leave me with little choice to conclude that far from "stabilising" Iraq, the US was seeking to guarantee a source of fuel and a nice easy target to win a palpable victory against. That, in my book is called an invasion, and is precisely what Saddam tried to do in annexing Kuwait.
I am fortunate in that I can happily agree that the war was justified should any evidence emerge, and still be right about the way it was conducted. If it turns out that Saddam was (in his own way, and time) complying with resolution 1441, then I'm afraid the pro war camp can only be wrong. Bang on about human rights abuse as much as you like. There are bigger, and more pressing targets that could have been addressed (Israel, Palestine, Turkey, China......etc). Unfortunately these wouldn't have given up any petrol or an easy solution. Was the war about WMD, sponsoring terror, politically liberating Iraq, or returning the control of oilfields to the people? I forget which is the current one <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
We are now at a crossroads, not just in the larger context of "what now" with regards to international relations and the world order, but on a more immediate scale in Iraq. How will the war be remembered, a liberation, or a raid? I'd like to think that the truth (and again I can't say what that is) will out. Sadly I'm reminded about sayings no the first casualties of war, and another about who writes history......
I believe that the only ones that weren't shot were in the Baath party, who were probably already "wandering the streets of Baghdad". In Iraq, you can get shot for watching the wrong TV station. Saddam administered an effective, if brutal, police state. After all, this is the man who modeled himself after Stalin.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The precedent that was just set is that if you run a horrible dictatorship, attempt to permanently occupy your neighbors, and threaten the US and its allies, you will be dismantled.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Man, China must be shaking in their shoes. If I was the premier of China I'd be cleaning my act up right now because I'd be looking skywards for the B-52s. And I can just see North Korea buckling under as we speak. (de-activate sarcasm)
The fact is, and this ties in with an earlier point I made perhaps in another thread, that the US won't apply this stratagy of "dictatorship overthrow" to all the dictatorships of the world. 1 reason would be some of these dictatorships are too powerful. Another would be that some dictatorships (looking at YOU Gulf States) are actively supported by the US. So, it's ok for Saudi Arabia to run a nigh medieval system of government and human rights in it's country, but Iraq cannot? If you're going to use the arguement that removing a dictator is grounds enough for war then it must be applied everywhere.
The impression I get from your statement is that it's ok to be a dictatorship, even a horrible one, as long as you don't invade your neighbours or threaten the US. Maybe I got it wrong and just one of those prerequisites is enough for the tanks to start rolling. If it IS then half the world is up for invasion; there's few nations on earth that do not as of now occupy lands that were previously their neghbours'.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It is the only lesson that a dictator cares about - certainly not western teenagers protesting their human rights violations. Their lives are shaped by force, and force is what they comprehend.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly! Now what the US has done is gone and proven this to these dictatorships: might makes right, if you're strong enough you can get away with whatever you want. look at the differance in the US approach to Iraq and North Korea. the US backs way away from even suggesting using military force against North Korea, despite the North Korean regime being at least as bad as Saddam, and probably a great deal worse. What do these dictators see? North Korea has nukes, this is what prevents a US attack. You say they understand force, this is correct. They are now seeing that with enough force, one can be immune to attack.
I'd reply to the pre-emptive strike historical examples but that would start a whole new thread <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> However, wouldn't Japan's attack on Pearl Harbour be considered a legitimate pre-emptive strike?
'Geopolitics not black and white. It's not as simple as you all want it to be. It's shades of grey, and circumstantial.'
I've replied to your points many times already. Use search, or post something new for me, please. For now, I'll ask for examples of dictatorships that were toppled without violence (although maybe Nem will want this into a new topic - pretty far off my original one at this point folks). I am seeking enlightenment...
All I'm saying is that dictatorships arn't just going to go away, nor will the US actively seek to remove them.
Do as you wish - honestly, I doubt that the initial topic still serves very much of a discussion hook, because nobody disagrees that the freeing of tortured prisoners is a good thing. The real discussion - whether this was truly the right way of helping human rights along - is more abstract and would in my opinion burst the frame of this thread anyway.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Protesting and civil disobedience only work in countries where the law and government is already in good shape. In a dictatorship, they find it a joke and ignore it, or violently quell it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry to beat one of my favorite dead horses here, but there is an example I have personal experience, which you value so much, with: The GDR.
Believe me, law and government were in <i>no</i> good shape there - it was one of the last two stalinist countries left on the planet (the second one being North Korea), after all.
The GDR featured the secondmost effective secret service of the world, the Stasi ('Staatsicherheit'), which had the most closely knit surveilance system ever deviced (the house we bought when moving to Saxony was later discovered to be bugged from roof to basement), some of the worst prisons you could ever be brought to (in the 50s and 60s, some prisoners were forced to stand in ankle-deep cold water for days on end, to name one example), the army was considered better and more disciplined than the Soviet army itself, and the leaders... Well, let's just say that they weren't exactely saints, either.
Yet, today, we have one Germany, and I can't remember any military strikes around here...
There <i>are</i> alternatives to armed interventions. They only don't have some hundred thousands of corpses to back their effectiviness up, which leads many people to believe that they're unrealistic. Surely, freedom can't have such a 'low' price, can it?
Without the threat of violence, it's fairly likely that the warsaw pact would have extended all the way to portugal. What else do you think kept the Russians at bay when stalin, krushchev, and the rest of the real wackos were in power in the 40's, 50's, and 60's?
I await your reply.
I'm with MonsE here, please try to consider what it must be like. Held in inhumane conditions. Denied access to your family and friends. Denied access to a lawyer, or fair trial. Even denied a legal status! Carted around on trailers in cages in the heat of Cuba.....oh hang on I'm thinking about the "illegal combatants" of Guantanamo bay! Oopsie!
(yet another serious point disguised as frippery)
I'm categorically against MonsE for a change, and I think I can quitre safely argue it without sounding like a monster.
As I see it, you can subdivide the prisoners into 2 categories initially: Those found guilty of the crimes they were imprisoned for, and those imprisoned for "political reasons". There's my first problem right there. You now have a percentage of burgulars, rapists, murders, wife beaters etc (see I can be emotive too!) wandering the "liberated" streets of Baghdad. Hurrah for freedom!
Given the choice of having a few days extra freedom, or waiting for due process to free them, I'd imagine even the political prisoners would elect to remain in a coallition administered prison, rather than have genuinely guilty people roaming the streets.
If you want to talk about inhumane treatment of prisoners, there are only 3 nations in which the lawful execution of children is carried out. Iraq is one. The US is another. Let he who is without sin.....
I particularly liked the picture at the end. I won't cast aspersions on the guy holding up the ID card, but I will ask why it was there. Children torturing? Evidence in a murder case? A missing person report? A seized forged document?
I'm sure we can all agree that the regime was not the most ethical. However, what impression would an execution chamber in a federal penitentuary give? I don't know about the circumstances the prisoners were kept in. Neither do you. The only ones that do, are the guards and the prisoners themselves. I'm fairly sure that human rights were abused, and torture carried out. Unfortunately I can't say for sure. Lets try (however hard) to keep an open mind. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I did try to answer the original with this ^^^^
I don't think you've answered that one yet. I'm happy to move on from it though....
Without the threat of violence, it's fairly likely that the warsaw pact would have extended all the way to portugal. What else do you think kept the Russians at bay when stalin, krushchev, and the rest of the real wackos were in power in the 40's, 50's, and 60's?
I await your reply.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now you're overcomplicating my statement. Of course, there <i>was</i> violence - the inner-German border was quite possibly the hottest cold conflict zone in history, and the option of a violent solution did of course always play a major role in the development of the issue, much as the constant bombing by allied forces since 1991 played a role in pre-war Iraq.
This does however not change a thing about the fact that the eastern German population (which sucks as much as every other large group of people I've encountered thus far) managed to come to a peaceful solution <i>despite</i> the heated situation, which was doubtlessly at least as full of 'potential' violence as the pre-war Iraq. You made the statement that demonstrations and civil disobedience never helped against a dictatorship - the GDR ended thanks to demonstrations and public disobedience. I do not neglect the militaric situation of the Cold War (which I'd happily discuss with you in a seperate topic, because I feel it's critical for the understanding of current events).
In answer to your last post, I'll quote Starship Troopers, and one of my favourite quotes of all time "All authority derives, ultimately, from the threat of force". Whether the violence is overt, or implied, its not just dictatorships that hold power like that. Civil disobedience is crushed by armed police (g7 demonstrations, anti-war demonstrations, kyoto protests). Once a government is elected, its free to ignore its manifesto promises, and (checks and balances permitting) pass any unmandated laws it likes. The people have no recourse except demonstation, or electing new representatives in 4 years time. So I guess we're kind of in agreement on this one <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
I think the real Iraq issue is, 'Do you trust Bush?'. If you don't, you buy into the theories of War for Oil, doing this for his dad, the elimination of civil liberties, new imperialism, etc.
Call me naive, but I trust Bush and the information he's presenting about WMDs; I admit freeing the Iraqis is an added bonus.
Nem- Whats your opinion of the Saddam statue coming down yesterday? I was too young at the time, but I've been told it was a very 'Berlin Wall' atmosphere. Any comments, you being German an all.
-_-
Now I just feel old and depressed and don't want to talk about it anymore...
You're elderly.
/me <b>runs</b>.
You're elderly.
/me <b>runs</b>. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
neither.
You're <b>classic</b>. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Bleh. I just wanna sleep now...
Oh wait, that has the opposite effect.
Whoops! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
EDIT
Look how old my avatar is. You're not THAT old...