Evil Actions

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Justin24

Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Messages
6,716
Location
San Mateo
Ok I know many here hate the Bush Administration. I have problems with them in certain areas. Now many of you say we should not go into other countries to resolve their problems. So would that mean Kosovo, and other eastern European countries.
Why should the US or UN intervine in any countries problem, let them sort it out, right. I can't say that Bush was right in going into Iraq cause of WMD's. But how could we let the actions of a leader who tortures, and executes people, because they talked bad about their regime.

This is a link to the Foundation for the defence of Democracy, where it shows what saddam had done to his people. Why would it be ok for us to go in a white european eastern european country where an ethnic population was being massacred, but not in a country where a country is consisted of darker skinned people. Are we the same "Human Beings?"

Warning the videos are graphic in nature watch at your own risk. This is what was happening before the US went in. Like I said I dont agree with the war but Saddam also had to be stopped.

http://fdd.typepad.com/fdd/2006/01/alert_saddams_c.html

*warning videos are graphic and not for the faint of heart.*
 
There are many other nations that have abysmal human rights records that the US doesn't seem intent on stopping any time soon and some of them the US actually is on friendly terms with. It's not that cut and dry.
 
I know and I agree. The congo is another place,Saudi Arabia, China, North Korea
 
Justin24 said:

Why should the US or UN intervine in any countries problem, let them sort it out, right.

I agree in intervention personally...for example, UN intervention and better forms of aid. Military intervention is another story.
What I find discouraging is that the US government tends to be seeing only one way of dealing with international relations--and that's through military force...saddens me.
 
And the problem with the UN also is they turn their backs on many people (example Rwanda) 1,000,000 people were killed which could have been prevented had the UN done something sooner.
 
I agree. On top of that they have become as corrupt as many of the people they are supposed to keep in check.
 
starsgoblue said:
The UN definetly is not without it's faults...:sigh: I think they forget sometimes the entire reason why it was created in the first place....
Child rape and kickbacks?
 
We all have to choose our battles. Even Superman had to pass up a few battles. Hell even Jesus didn't bring everyone back to life or heal every leper.

We aren't the world police. We have to ask ourselves about the short term consequences and the long term consequences, we have to ask ourselves will this energy and resources be best used here or there? Do we help our neighbor when we have problems in our own backyard?

This isn't a black and white issue. I honestly don't think there is a foolproof lithmus test to run through.

Plus as a nation you have to ask yourself is this legal???

Now that being said, I find the invasion of Iraq to be an invasion that didn't pass a few tests. It fails the longterm consequences tremendously, and a few others that I won't get into at this time.
 
The majority of the people in Iraq wanted the US to finish the Job and get saddam out of power, but I think Bush Senior knew it would be a mistake and cause alot more deaths if that happened, as we see today.
 
We played our own hand in creating the monster Saddam, don't forget. The whole thing is such a mess.

And the issue of "world police"...what exactly do you mean by that? I don't want to respond improperly to what you meant by the term.
 
A_Wanderer said:
Did the leaving Saddam in power choice pass this "global test"?

It must be nice to live in such a black and white world...

Has the idea that leaving a kindergarden democracy in the hands of ameteurs surrounded by folks that would love to take over, past your test?

The problem with the whole "Saddam is a bad guy" mentality is that it has no long term. It just stops there.

We all agree he was a fucker.

But not one person from this administration nor you have given any answer as to the long run. Why is that?

Also what about all those that are worse than he? It's a strawman test.
 
Justin24 said:
The majority of the people in Iraq wanted the US to finish the Job and get saddam out of power, but I think Bush Senior knew it would be a mistake and cause alot more deaths if that happened, as we see today.

Eh...I think some people in govt. thought we'd be hailed as liberators....not the case however at all.
 
Justin24 said:
The majority of the people in Iraq wanted the US to finish the Job and get saddam out of power, but I think Bush Senior knew it would be a mistake and cause alot more deaths if that happened, as we see today.

Are you saying we've just completed the mistake?
 
In a sense we did. Although this time I dont think the majority of the people, unless you count the Kurds in the north wanted Saddam out of power. We made the mistake of going in ill prepared and the consiquences are huge. We should have kept with Afghanistan. Afghanistan was the country origin that allowed Usma to attack the United States.
We should have gone after N.Korea, the only problem is, we would have to deal with the Chinese.
 
Even though Bushes father was also not to bright, at least he knew the consiquences if he were to remove saddam from power.
 
Justin24 said:
In a sense we did. Although this time I dont think the majority of the people, unless you count the Kurds in the north wanted Saddam out of power. We made the mistake of going in ill prepared and the consiquences are huge. We should have kept with Afghanistan. Afghanistan was the country origin that allowed Usma to attack the United States.
We should have gone after N.Korea, the only problem is, we would have to deal with the Chinese.

In a sense we did what?
 
Justin24 said:
The majority of the people in Iraq wanted the US to finish the Job and get saddam out of power, but I think Bush Senior knew it would be a mistake and cause alot more deaths if that happened, as we see today.
But thats the rub, more people are not dying today. By the numbers there has been a net saving of life creeping towards 100,000+. The stability in the region issue is a key element in what drives terrorism, stability during the cold war was guaranteed by dictators, radical elements against them tended to be Islamist and support was gained by the hatred of foreign proxy governments.

Leaving Saddam in power is not a straw man argument. 30,000 dead Iraqi's and 2000+ American and Coalition soliders is the cost of action. The cost of inaction however can only be guessed at by extending what was going on in the country before Saddam was removed and projecting forward. In the absence of a massive shift and a continuation of sanctions (which we now know were corrupted) we can project Iraqi deaths - rates of around 30,000 dead by the regime anually, even more from lack of nutrition and medicine. The geostrategic implications of leaving him in power are important too, missile deals were being done right up to the start of the war - if sanctions were lifted we now know that the intention to reconstitute weapons programs was there. So many factors and no need to acknowledge them because they now rest in the realm of the hypothetical.

In 1996 Madeline Albright made the position of the Clinton administration quite clear
> Leslie Stahl: "We have heard that a half million children have died (as a
> result of sanctions against Iraq). I mean, that is more children than died
> in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"
>
> Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price, we
> think the price is worth it."
Was a continuation of those policies and all the death that it would entail a price worth paying to avoid war?
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Are you saying we've just completed the mistake?

Made the mistake of removing saddam with out really planning it out, or taking him out period.
 
But also leaving him in power would result in more death as depicted in those video and what A_wanderer mentioned.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:

I think some feel like we have the right to police the world, and that's not the case.


Ok, what I mean is the use of your term 'policing'. Do you mean that intervention of any sorts in other countries is bad, even if there is nonmilitary and altruistic intent. Or do you mean by acting like the bully on the playground?
 
"His [Clinton's] policies are responsible for killing more Iraqis that George Bush."

-Cindy Sheehan
link

That is a true fact. But he was simply extending a policy built of the decisions of the previous administrations due to the confines of the UN resolutions.

The Reagan and Bush administrations layed the groundwork for a lot of that death.
 
A_Wanderer said:
The geostrategic implications of leaving him in power are important too, missile deals were being done right up to the start of the war - if sanctions were lifted we now know that the intention to reconstitute weapons programs was there.

What slays me is one of the Iraqi buildings used by the UK in justification for going to war on the grounds of WMD was financied with UK money. :| Like I said, the whole thing is a giant mess.
 
Very pessimistic, the seperation between domestic insurgency and foreign jihadists has been a good development. The engagement of the Sunnis in the democratic process. The inability of the Shiite religious parties to gain outright majority forcing a balance of power situation with the Kurds, Sunnis and Secular parties. The rumblings of democratic movements around the region. The surrendering of Libya's WMD. The diminished support for Al Qaeda organisations especially among the Iraqi population as they have turned their guns repeatedly upon innocent Muslims.

The very isolationist concepts that seem to have taken route in the left are the antithesis of the internationalism that it once stood for. It is quite a reactionary position that provides a common ground between the right and left.
 
starsgoblue said:



Ok, what I mean is the use of your term 'policing'. Do you mean that intervention of any sorts in other countries is bad, even if there is nonmilitary and altruistic intent. Or do you mean by acting like the bully on the playground?

No I just mean it's not our job by definition. If we were the world police we would hold the burden of helping EVERYONE.
 
But doesn't the idea behind the UN imply 'world police' in a sense? I mean it has it's own international court and whatnot. I know that there are other permament member countries of the UN besides the United States but you know what I mean I think.

And while the situation in Iraq is ANYTHNG but another version of the Marshall Plan, wouldn't the question be begged why did/would we help Europe and not other parts of the world? Another MP of sorts for Africa, for example. I know what the obvious answer would seem to be but still...
 
Back
Top Bottom