Original Sin and Its Curse

[_JS]

A good recent example is Darfur, where we only recently decided to impose stricter sanctions on Sudan. Will that end the immediate threat the people face?

How long has the UN been ignoring Darfur? And yet the US is the bad guy. I call bullshit!

I don't recall saying that other nations could not do more.

[_JS]

What did you think I ment by "that"?
We do not remain uninvolved , we were co-opertive with Pinochet we participated in the hunting down of Che Guarva . Darfur needs our attention, should we remain uninvoled?

If you meant that we sometimes interfere to aid the brutal regime, then I don't understand what your original point was meant to convey.

[Plane]

What did you think I ment by "that"?
We do not remain uninvolved , we were co-opertive with Pinochet we participated in the hunting down of Che Guarva . Darfur needs our attention, should we remain uninvoled?

If you meant that we sometimes interfere to aid the brutal regime, then I don't understand what your original point was meant to convey.

You forgot question I was asked , we do not remain uninvolved , for good or ill we cannot.

[Michael Tee]

<<Not invadeing would be a lot like watching a killing of an innocent with our hands firmly placed in pocket.>>

The only thing wrong with that little trick or sleight of hand, is that you've managed to watch the killings of tens of thousands of innocents, and continue to do so, most often by people whom you have paid, armed, financed and protected in thousands of different ways.  In Indonesia, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Egypt, the West Bank, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Uzbekistan and probably quite a few more that I just can't recall on the sprur of the moment.

Not invading would have been actually to have left the torture, rape and murder in the hands of the one guy with a chance of stabilizing the country, instead of, as now, farming it out to literally thousands of torturers, rapists and murderers (including your own) each with their own torture chambers, instruments of torture and murder, spin machines victim-procurement teams.

it amazes me that you can manage to insulate yourself inside such ridiculous fantasies as the "Save the Children" crap when in fact there are probably many more children blown to bits or burned alive as a result of the U.S. intervention, bombing, use of white phosphorus and indiscriminate tank and automatic weapons fire than happened during all the years of Saddam's dictatorship.

[gipper]

I suppose it would take a dissertation in the anthropology of law and the moral philosophy of international behavior and relations -- which I cannot offer -- to lay out fully the case for the existence of international law and ideals of international standards. Rather, we'll have to content ourselves with the following sketch. We can simply skip all the history and background and focus on the UN Charter, which is not only as close as it gets to international law but does so based upon the voluntary agreement of the signatories, of which the US is prominent. In paraphrased language, the Charter sanctions (allows) only defensive wars, which I believe must be extended to true situations in which preemption is called for (imminence of the threat, degree of harm threatened, lack of other available means to defuse the threat ... and (I will add now) a genuine last resort). I have no interest right now in parsing Bush's actions by this standard. Instead, again in an oft-repeated position, I don't think Bush was "knowingly wrong" about his decision to go to war but rather reckless or careless or negligent or "primed" and so so, states of mind that give him cover from an outright charge of unlawfulness, but which, emphatically, do not relieve one ounce of the responsibility he carries as the responsible political leader. My position is that even in a miasma of swirling contradictions, sitting atop an edgy nation stung with fear, and being nursed on the seductive sweetness of the neo-con tit regarding a "one fell swoop solution" to the entire range of problems in the Middle East, Bush remains responsible ... because no one else is. If Bush were the man he aspires to be, which he is not, he would make an attempt -- beyond the forced steps of a man being pushed to the gallows -- to lead in the fashion I have suggested, to heal and make strong a national resolve that can't longer more tolerate the indulgences of a man both bungling yet acting like he just won a Nobel Prize.

[Plane]

I suppose it would take a dissertation in the anthropology of law and the moral philosophy of international behavior and relations -- which I cannot offer -- to lay out fully the case for the existence of international law and ideals of international standards. Rather, we'll have to content ourselves with the following sketch. We can simply skip all the history and background and focus on the UN Charter, which is not only as close as it gets to international law but does so based upon the voluntary agreement of the signatories, of which the US is prominent. In paraphrased language, the Charter sanctions (allows) only defensive wars, which I believe must be extended to true situations in which preemption is called for (imminence of the threat, degree of harm threatened, lack of other available means to defuse the threat ... and (I will add now) a genuine last resort). I have no interest right now in parsing Bush's actions by this standard. Instead, again in an oft-repeated position, I don't think Bush was "knowingly wrong" about his decision to go to war but rather reckless or careless or negligent or "primed" and so so, states of mind that give him cover from an outright charge of unlawfulness, but which, emphatically, do not relieve one ounce of the responsibility he carries as the responsible political leader. My position is that even in a miasma of swirling contradictions, sitting atop an edgy nation stung with fear, and being nursed on the seductive sweetness of the neo-con tit regarding a "one fell swoop solution" to the entire range of problems in the Middle East, Bush remains responsible ... because no one else is. If Bush were the man he aspires to be, which he is not, he would make an attempt -- beyond the forced steps of a man being pushed to the gallows -- to lead in the fashion I have suggested, to heal and make strong a national resolve that can't longer more tolerate the indulgences of a man both bungling yet acting like he just won a Nobel Prize.

I don't understand how you have forgotten that Saddam was already in a state of war with the UN and the US , Saddam never forgot.

[Plane]

<<Not invadeing would be a lot like watching a killing of an innocent with our hands firmly placed in pocket.>>

The only thing wrong with that little trick or sleight of hand, is that you've managed to watch the killings of tens of thousands of innocents, and continue to do so, most often by people whom you have paid, armed, financed and protected in thousands of different ways.  In Indonesia, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Egypt, the West Bank, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Uzbekistan and probably quite a few more that I just can't recall on the sprur of the moment.

Not invading would have been actually to have left the torture, rape and murder in the hands of the one guy with a chance of stabilizing the country, instead of, as now, farming it out to literally thousands of torturers, rapists and murderers (including your own) each with their own torture chambers, instruments of torture and murder, spin machines victim-procurement teams.

it amazes me that you can manage to insulate yourself inside such ridiculous fantasies as the "Save the Children" crap when in fact there are probably many more children blown to bits or burned alive as a result of the U.S. intervention, bombing, use of white phosphorus and indiscriminate tank and automatic weapons fire than happened during all the years of Saddam's dictatorship.

Was it predictabe that the vultures would arrive in such flocks when addam was knocked over?
How much worse than they are was Saddam to hold them at bay?
If we help the people of Darfur perhaps there will be a negative effect , can you claim to know?

I don't accept the premise that we should help none because we can not help all , nor do I accept the premise that success must be assured before attempting to help.

[gipper]

Your last reply to me, Plane, is so petty as not to deserve from me a further response beyond this.

[Plane]

Your last reply to me, Plane, is so petty as not to deserve from me a further response beyond this.

Victory is mine!

[Michael Tee]

<<Was it predictabe that the vultures would arrive in such flocks when addam was knocked over?>>

Don't forget, you brought your own vultures (Chalabi & Co.) to the party.  What was not predictable was that other vultures would eat your vulture alive.  Please don't try to pretend that you came to Iraq to replace a hated dictator with government of the people, by the people, for the people.  I'm not that stupid and neither are most of the persons reading this.  You came to replace a disobedient puppet with a subservient one, that's all.  You had a Castro on your hands and you wanted a Batista.

<<How much worse than they are was Saddam to hold them at bay?>>

Well, from what I see and from what the polls in Iraq say, Saddam was actually better because the torture was relatively confined.

<<If we help the people of Darfur perhaps there will be a negative effect , can you claim to know?>>

Don't make me laugh, until oil - - and lots of it - - is discovered in Darfur, there's a greater chance of me becoming President of the United States of America than there is of you helping the people of Darfur.

<<I don't accept the premise that we should help none because we can not help all  . . .>>

Obviously, you have totally misunderstood my argument.  I did not argue that you should not have "helped" [LMFAO at the use of the word "helped" in this context] Iraq before you "helped" everyone else at the same time.   My argument - - and it seems pretty obvious - - is that your total failure to help any other people suffering under the rule of torturers and murderers renders absolutely unbelievable any claim that you are now "helping" or indeed ever even intended to "help" the people of Iraq.

<<nor do I accept the premise that success must be assured before attempting to help.>>

No, neither do I, but the subject is somewhat academic, given that you have never attempted to help anyone except yourselves and then always at someone else's expense.

[Plane]

<<Was it predictabe that the vultures would arrive in such flocks when addam was knocked over?>>

Don't forget, you brought your own vultures (Chalabi & Co.) to the party.  What was not predictable was that other vultures would eat your vulture alive.  Please don't try to pretend that you came to Iraq to replace a hated dictator with government of the people, by the people, for the people.  I'm not that stupid and neither are most of the persons reading this.  You came to replace a disobedient puppet with a subservient one, that's all.  You had a Castro on your hands and you wanted a Batista.

<<How much worse than they are was Saddam to hold them at bay?>>

Well, from what I see and from what the polls in Iraq say, Saddam was actually better because the torture was relatively confined.

<<If we help the people of Darfur perhaps there will be a negative effect , can you claim to know?>>

Don't make me laugh, until oil - - and lots of it - - is discovered in Darfur, there's a greater chance of me becoming President of the United States of America than there is of you helping the people of Darfur.

<<I don't accept the premise that we should help none because we can not help all  . . .>>

Obviously, you have totally misunderstood my argument.  I did not argue that you should not have "helped" [LMFAO at the use of the word "helped" in this context] Iraq before you "helped" everyone else at the same time.   My argument - - and it seems pretty obvious - - is that your total failure to help any other people suffering under the rule of torturers and murderers renders absolutely unbelievable any claim that you are now "helping" or indeed ever even intended to "help" the people of Iraq.

<<nor do I accept the premise that success must be assured before attempting to help.>>

No, neither do I, but the subject is somewhat academic, given that you have never attempted to help anyone except yourselves and then always at someone else's expense.

Sudan does have oil , and a crazy government

"Please don't try to pretend that you came to Iraq to replace a hated dictator with government of the people, by the people, for the people.  "

What makes that  stupid idea?

[Plane]

<<Not invadeing would be a lot like watching a killing of an innocent with our hands firmly placed in pocket.>>

The only thing wrong with that little trick or sleight of hand, is that you've managed to watch the killings of tens of thousands of innocents, and continue to do so, most often by people whom you have paid, armed, financed and protected in thousands of different ways.  In Indonesia, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Egypt, the West Bank, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Uzbekistan and probably quite a few more that I just can't recall on the sprur of the moment.

Not invading would have been actually to have left the torture, rape and murder in the hands of the one guy with a chance of stabilizing the country, instead of, as now, farming it out to literally thousands of torturers, rapists and murderers (including your own) each with their own torture chambers, instruments of torture and murder, spin machines victim-procurement teams.

it amazes me that you can manage to insulate yourself inside such ridiculous fantasies as the "Save the Children" crap when in fact there are probably many more children blown to bits or burned alive as a result of the U.S. intervention, bombing, use of white phosphorus and indiscriminate tank and automatic weapons fire than happened during all the years of Saddam's dictatorship.

Was it predictabe that the vultures would arrive in such flocks when addam was knocked over?
How much worse than they are was Saddam to hold them at bay?
If we help the people of Darfur perhaps there will be a negative effect , can you claim to know?

I don't accept the premise that we should help none because we can not help all , nor do I accept the premise that success must be assured before attempting to help.

[Michael Tee]

<<Sudan does have oil , and a crazy government >>

Not enough apparently.  Nowhere near the proven reserves and the potential of Iraq and Iran.



<<Quote
<<"Please don't try to pretend that you came to Iraq to replace a hated dictator with government of the people, by the people, for the people.  "

<<plane:  What makes that  stupid idea?>>

In the first place, it's not an idea that ever moved your present government, so how smart or stupid it is, is irrelevant in the context.  My comment was meant to expose the hypocrisy of a country that invades another and claims to be doing it for the victim's own good.  You came there with the intention of installing a puppet ruler, Chalabi, who was a convicted criminal but would do your bidding.  You did not come with any intention at all of establishing a genuinely free and democratic government, indeed when a freely elected popular government was elected by the Palestinians you immediately turned agaisnt it and cut off its funding.  So much for your "respect" for democracy.

[Plane]

<<Sudan does have oil , and a crazy government >>

Not enough apparently.  Nowhere near the proven reserves and the potential of Iraq and Iran.

Plenty to cause trouble , look at what the contested territory is going through.
After we get involved all of th trouble will be our fault , right now it is just trouble.


<<Quote
<<"Please don't try to pretend that you came to Iraq to replace a hated dictator with government of the people, by the people, for the people.  "

<<plane:  What makes that  stupid idea?>>

In the first place, it's not an idea that ever moved your present government, so how smart or stupid it is, is irrelevant in the context.  My comment was meant to expose the hypocrisy of a country that invades another and claims to be doing it for the victim's own good.  You came there with the intention of installing a puppet ruler, Chalabi, who was a convicted criminal but would do your bidding.  You did not come with any intention at all of establishing a genuinely free and democratic government, indeed when a freely elected popular government was elected by the Palestinians you immediately turned agaisnt it and cut off its funding.  So much for your "respect" for democracy.
[/quote]

I thnk you have got no reason to doubt that we want a freely elected government in Iraq , with an Iriqui written constiution and an Iriqui elected leader.

But if they elect an anti-American we really do not have to feed them .

The Palestinians elected people we cannot support , so we have started feeding them less , I think we might should consider feeding them not at all.