Iraq - one and a bit years on.

What I don't understand is what changed your mind. Was this an outcome that you couldn't forsee from the get-go, despite a large number of people telling you that the Administration's pie-in-the-sky predictions of Iraqi acceptance just weren't realistic?I have a sneaking suspicion that you rejected the claims of the naysayers just because they were namby-pamby liberals, and what the hell do they know about anything?

We have done so little to help the great suffering of the people of Tibet. Well, they don't have oil reserves and China is an important market. We could have cooperated with the UN but that might not have given us enough control of the oil. I know the UN is far from perfect but now all eyes our on the imperfection of the US and I don't think they will discriminate between Bush and his cronies and the US.I wonder if the supreme court plans on reappointing Bush to a second term? Well, now that we have the Patriot act to spy on our own citizen and take away our civil rights we can all sleep easier at night knowing our government is keeping us safe from ourselves and Iraq.
So with those two enemies out of the way I'm sure the few terrorists left in the world will be speedily taken care of. Remember just trust authority and don't think for yourself and everything will be fine.
I don't have a lot of money but if we need to give more of it to the rich and the corporations to spend on war, then take what little I got I know Bush wouldn't do that unless it was for his and his friends benefit. What would we poor Americans spend it on? Just our health and families anyway.well, I do sometimes feel bitter at the abuses of power and authority, guess it comes from being a boomer and hearing so many lies about Viet Nam while so many died there because of the arrogant ignorance of the leaders.I wish everyone peace,
lfen

I did not support the war wholeheartedly, but once we invaded Iraq and destroyed the Saddam regime I became more and more a proponent of the US actions.While appalling, and wrong, I think the prisoner abuse is absolutely inconsequential to the bigger picture. That some idiotic servicemen chose to do idiotic things (nothing near as bad as what Kerry admitted to in Vietnam by the way) has no more reflection on servicemen, or the US government, in general than Jeffrey Dahmer or Aldrich Aime's actions are a reflection of Americans in general.Additionally, the prisoner abuse is NOTHING in comparison to what the Iraqi government had been doing to its own people for dozens of years. The other major difference is that the US government will punish the perpetrators of the abuse but the previous Iraqi regime not only condoned abuse, but torture and murder as well.Personally, I could care less that there were no WMDs found in Iraq. I think the US government may be guilty of embellishing this point, but so what? We know Saddam had them and we know he had not reservations using them on Kurds and Iranians. We knew there were tons of unaccounted for WMDs and we knew the character of Saddam. And we knew that Saddam was not complying with the inspection teams in Iraq. This information alone was enough for the world to take more extreme action than the useless embargoes.At the time I thought that a complete invasion seemed a bit drastic, but knowing now what I know about the way France, Germany, and Russia abused of the "oil for food" program to line their pockets (read the William Safire articles if you care about this subject- extremely illuminating), I think we did the right thing. Europe and the UN would never have done anything to improve things in Iraq - they were only interested in a stable source of money (and yes, the same claim can be levied on the US about Saudi Arabia).I think we did the right thing, because the human rights abuses, the wholesale murder and torture of the population of Iraq was almost on par with what occurred in Serbia, what occurred in Haiti, and other countries where we felt the need to step in militarily and say 'stop.'I felt we did the right thing because of the geo-political importance of Iraq. It's one thing to invade Afghanistan, it's quite another to invade a country like Iraq and send the message to the entire Middle East 'we aren't going to take your bullshit anymore.' It is not a coincidence that Libya did an about face, that Syria suddenly became much more cooperative, and that Iran is now walking around on tip toes - three countries whose govt's have sponsored terrorism for years.If we can somehow help the Iraqis build the infrastructure for a real representative government in the heart of Middle East, don't you think that this will spill over to affect every other country in the region? Wouldn't that be much more likely to improve the likelihood that the values of democracy and republicanism might take hold in these neighboring countries rather than to continue to bombard them with Coca-cola and Madonna?And while I sympathize with US service personnel, as a veteran I do not feel sorry for them. Anyone who VOLUNTEERED to enlist in the military who didn't realize that personal danger was part and parcel of the job description when he signed the papers, certainly realized it once he was handed a rifle and was instructed to shoot at human shaped targets.If the voluntary service men and women do not agree with the political reasons why they are sent to Iraq, they can quit. Smoke some dope, claim you are gay, fake an injury, or simply refuse to go - you will be discharged. True, it is not likely to be an honorable discharge, but you still have the choice to quit if you think you can no longer fulfill the commitment you made when you enlisted.Finally, I think it is much, much too early to judge the effectiveness of US involvement in Iraq. Had anyone looked at post war Japan and Germany one year after they were occupied, would they have any inkling of what these countries were to become in ten or twenty years?I don't know that I agree that a country has to become 'ready for democracy' through internal means alone. In any case, the reasons why we invaded are moot from the perspective of the Iraqis. And from the perspective of future historians, where Iraq is ten years from now will be how US actions will be judged, not whether we found WMDs or had some photos of a few twenty-year old jailors parading naked prisoners around.

This seriously makes you sound like you believe the prison abuses were just rogue servicemen and contractors, and not the result of administrative decisions at the highest level. You might want to reword it to avoid appearing to hold such a surreal position.Look, if my own administration is turning dogs on people of no concievable intelligence value that were simply rounded up off the street, I consider that a pretty big deal. That's as big a deal to me as Saddam throwing folks in woodchippers. I don't get to vote in Iraq. But I sure as hell do vote here, and so when stuff like that happens, I - we all - bear some of the responsibility.Is what happened in that prison as bad as what used to happen in Iraq? Certainly not. But "tu quoque" isn't and never has been an excuse. Should what happened in that prison be as large a concern to the American voter as anything that happened in Iraq? Absofuckin'-lutely. If I dump a bucket full of freshwater in to the Pacific, do you think it "spills over" and makes the ocean drinkable? They're surrounded by Islamic theocracy. The theocratic advocates are the single largest group in their potential electorate. If they succeed in having a democracy, the first thing they'll do is "elect" a cleric-for-life.

Some more thoughts - I'm not a lawyer but I rather suspect that's illegal under the uniform code of military justice. Refusal to follow orders under active deployment is a prisonable offense.So, no, you can't just "quit" the Army, because you go to jail. Moreover, there's a whole lot of troops who just ceased to be volunteers - the military is suspending discharge for folks whose hitches are up. Like Kerry says it's a sort of "backdoor draft." Well, lets see. One year after they were occupied, they were Western, industrialized nations familiar with participatory government. Twenty years later, they still were. I don't remember any German suicide bombers in the history books. I don't remember any Japanese folks machine-gunning voters. (Yeah, that's Afghanistan, you know, that place we went to install democracy and freedom. How's that working out these days?)It's not like we can just pick up the pieces and fix what we bombed and call it a day. We have to make the pieces in Iraq. That part of the world is the damn Stone Age for most of those people. It's fairly unrealistic to assume that they're going to be ready for participatory government in the 21st century within the next, oh, 2 days.

Yes, I absolutely do believe these were actions of individuals and not the result of 'administrative decisions at the highest level.'Having been a member of the armed forces, and having worked for the government, I am constantly amazed by the efficiency attributed to the government. The military is the classic 'left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.' Do you honestly think ANYONE above the rank of Colonel had any inkling of what was occurring? Do you honestly think this was policy made by the President? Good god, what a farce. I doubt if even anyone above captain had a clue. They rarely do.Furthermore, I have personally guarded Iraqi prisoners (in the last gulf war) and I can tell you that we NEVER, EVER would have been allowed to subject our POWs to any sort of abuse. We even went to extremes to provide them with food they could eat (sorting out the MREs that contained pork products) and to make allowances for their religious observations. 1- I'm not sure how you can say these people were of no conceivable intelligence value, but perhaps you are privy to information I am not.2- I do not agree with you at all that menacing and intimidating (not torturing, not attacking,) individuals with dogs - the same types of behaviors our law enforcement agencies here in the US of A use- is the same thing as killing them. I'm not sure how you can make the comparison except on some remote intellectual precipace that is nowhere near reality. But that's the thing, Crash, this isn't the Pacific. Introducing democratic concepts such as self-determination and self-government will spill over. Why do you think the surrounding countries, Turkey and Saudi Arabia included, are so terrified by the prospect?And no, Iraq is not surrounded by Islamic theocracies. Turkey is not a theocracy. Syria and Jordan are not theocracies. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are not theocracies. Iran can be considered a theocracy. So that is one country out of six. How does that make Iraq surrounded by theocracies?Iraq will not elect 'a cleric for life' (unless religious Saddam-type strong man seizes the reigns of power) because Iraq is an artificial country that is comprised of no less than three (and actually several more) cultural and religious populations. There is no way the Sunni Iraqis or Kurds would allow a Shiite cleric to rule them.Perhaps the fact that Iraq is so factionalized may be favorable to a federal type of government so that any one group can not exploit the other two. Only time will tell, but there is also the likelihood that Iraq may splinter into three separate regions. The problems there would be that Turkey, Iran, and Syria would most likely invade or try to turn the respective provinces into a vassal states similar to Syria and Lebanon. Again, this may help keep Iraq united as the disparate parts are too weak to stand alone, but too strong to allow one of the others to take complete control.This message has been edited by custard, 06-28-2004 05:39 AM

quote:

---

While appalling, and wrong, I think the prisoner abuse is absolutely inconsequential to the bigger picture. That some idiotic servicemen chose to do idiotic things (nothing near as bad as what Kerry admitted to in Vietnam by the way) has no more reflection on servicemen, or the US government, in general than Jeffrey Dahmer or Aldrich Aime's actions are a reflection of Americans in general.

---

Why not? In order to claim this, you have to claim that Americans are in some way Special, higher orders of humanity than the benighted citizens of other times and places. Becuase America alone has superceded the psychological impact of war; its soldiers wade through blood but are not remotely traumatised, feel no anger, feel no hate. This is the normal conduct of war; its occurrence is unsurprising.

quote:

---

Additionally, the prisoner abuse is NOTHING in comparison to what the Iraqi government had been doing to its own people for dozens of years. The other major difference is that the US government will punish the perpetrators of the abuse but the previous Iraqi regime not only condoned abuse, but torture and murder as well.

---

Clearly, the US did condone the torture and abuse, becuase it only responded to PUBLIC outrage when the photos where leaked. While they were held internally, they were not meaningfully investigated and the perpetrators were largely ignored. "Investogations" were mostly asking the US troops whether they had done anything wrong, and accepting their denials.Plus, Rumsfields memo of March 6 20003 IIRC, makes it clear that torture is not torture if information is sought and tus the pain is infliucted for a "higher purpose". Wjhioch seems pretty much like the Baathist position, that the extreme meaurse to which they resorted were necessary in their domestic war against kurdish aand religious extremist terrorism. You are using exactly the same rationalisation that Saddam used.

quote:

---

Personally, I could care less that there were no WMDs found in Iraq. I think the US government may be guilty of embellishing this point, but so what?

---

Well certainly, a prime minister known to have lied to parliament, or in foreign policy negotiations, would be unacceptable as the public face of the nation. Doesn'tAmerica have some sense of public accountability?

quote:

---

We know Saddam had them and we know he had not reservations using them on Kurds and Iranians.

---

And we know that the US was entirely happy with it at the time, denouncing those who complained as silly Liberals.

quote:

---

We knew there were tons of unaccounted for WMDs and we knew the character of Saddam.

---

Well, we DON'T klnow that, that is a contentious claim advanced by the partisan organs claiming Saddam lied, and which the survey groups were due to find. They didn't the claims that these are "unnacounted for" is misleading, assuming as it does perfect paperwortk in a country wracked by more than a decade of sanctions. And thus we do not know that Saddam was prone to lying - it seems now he was pretty straight and up front.

quote:

---

At the time I thought that a complete invasion seemed a bit drastic, but knowing now what I know about the way France, Germany, and Russia abused of the "oil for food" program to line their pockets

---

And would you have accpeted a few years ago that such saintly Western states were capable of this exploitataion when many of us were calling for the murderous sanctions to be lifted? It was clear that the "oil for food" programme always was just a way for the West to line its pockets - how come you only notice this now?

quote:

---

I felt we did the right thing because of the geo-political importance of Iraq. It's one thing to invade Afghanistan, it's quite another to invade a country like Iraq and send the message to the entire Middle East 'we aren't going to take your bullshit anymore.'

---

The message you sent was "all Western statements about democracy and freedom are lies"

quote:

---

It is not a coincidence that Libya did an about face, that Syria suddenly became much more cooperative, and that Iran is now walking around on tip toes - three countries whose govt's have sponsored terrorism for years.

---

Oh, the threat was undeniably credible. But this is the politics of coercion, nakedly so: you are saying that you succesfully bullied them. Congratulations. Now what was that other issue about freedom and democracy?

quote:

---

If we can somehow help the Iraqis build the infrastructure for a real representative government in the heart of Middle East, don't you think that this will spill over to affect every other country in the region?

---

How can any state installed under the auspices of outside powers carry any democratic legitimacy?

quote:

---

And from the perspective of future historians, where Iraq is ten years from now will be how US actions will be judged, not whether we found WMDs or had some photos of a few twenty-year old jailors parading naked prisoners around.

---

Nonsense. America's place in history will be as an aggressor state, quick to use violence and always ready to turn a blind eye to its own culpability. Museums of American aggression will display the abuse photos in the same exhibition as the famous napalmed girl.{Fixed 2 quote boxes - AM}This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 06-28-2004 12:35 PM

That was my point. It is against the UCMJ to indulge in drugs and homosexual behavior. I have known many individuals to do so, and not one was imprisoned. The military doesn't have the resources to send every pot smoker or gay to Fort Leavenworth. They simply discharge you. Hell, they will discharge you for having a drinking problem, or for being too aggressive.Yes refusal to follow orders can result in prison, but so what? That's still an option if you feel you can't fulfill your obligations to the present Commander in Chief. If someone is so opposed to going to Iraq, then a few months in Leavenworth is an option. If your convictions are so strong, stand up for them and do a stretch in Leavenworth. If you are smart, there are literally dozens of ways of getting out of deployment. If you choose not to use them, I don't feel sorry for you because that is what you signed up to do - fight for Uncle Sam. Your ignorance is not evidence. For example, you seem to have forgotten that there were Japanese troops in the Pacific Theater who refused to surrender months after their country was defeated.You really believe there was no violence or civil unrest in Germany during its occupation? The Russians (in East Germany) never had to put rioters in jail or send them to a gulag? Actually, I think they did. If you want, I could try to look up some specific events.How long did violence continue in the Balkans even after we pacified the area? What about Haiti? Didn't they just revolt again? So because something doesn't work in one country it won't in another? Furthermore, Afghanistan is nothing like Iraq. It would be better to compare Iraq to former Yugoslavia or USSR republics than Afghanistan. More ignorance. Actually Iraq was one of the most advanced countries in the Middle East in terms of infrastructure (until we bombed the hell out of it), education, govt participation of women, and standard of living in part because it had such a stable government and significant oil revenues. Hyperbole aside, what, precisely, leads you to believe it is still in the stone age?What arrogance to judge another country's readiness for a representative government. So because you think Iraqis aren't Western enough to embrace a representative govt, they shouldn't be afforded the opportunity?Criticize the way in which we are trying to accomplish this change, or even the administrations of those who are doing it, but to criticize the concept of helping another nation out from under the tyranny of a brutal despot and to facilitate its realization of a self-representative government? You call yourself an American? You call yourself a liberal? Why don't Iraqis deserve the chance to govern themselves? Because you think they are in the 'stone age?'I honestly hope you don't really believe that.This message has been edited by custard, 06-28-2004 05:35 AM

Claim what? I don't understand what you mean here. That is not logical deduction. The same reasoning infers that the US condones child pornography because there is public outrage when photos are revealed. Please quote the entire quote to make your point or provide a link to the memo. Actually we do. Please refer to the UN inspection docs (can't remember off hand) that noted what we knew the Saddam regime to have and what had actually been documented as being destroyed. They did not add up. Sorry, that's just fact, not a right wing conspiracy. Uh, I 'notice it now' because the Iraqis did not reveal the documents showing how the oil for food scam worked (charge 10% more for products in cash, pocket the overage) until the US took down the Saddam govt and such docs were available. How were you able to come by this information before everyone else in outside of Iraq? Yes. So what? You confuse freedom and democracy of the individual with that of the state. So do you espouse the state's freedom to engage and support worldwide terrorism? Ask the Germans, the Japanese, the Israelis, the Phillipinos, the Haitians, the Austrians... want more? How about the Americans? You think the USA achieved democracy all by itself without the aid of foreign powers? Does that make the USA's democracy any less legitimate? Yeah, America has done nothing but kill people. No contributions to science, culture, art, literature, trade, oh wait, DEMOCRACY. What a ridiculous thing to judge a nation by one facet of its character. I suppose you think that all Germans are sadistic genocidal maniacs and all Russians are commie scum?What is the Roman and Greek legacy? Merely aggressors? America has contributed nothing to the world except for a napalmed girl? I think the South Koreans might disagree. I think Singapore might disagree. And while much of Europe might not disagree now, they certainly did back during the last two world wars didn't they?

But the democratic effort in Iraq is a sort of namby pamby liberal effort, with overzealous concern over the ethnicity of the leaders, sunni, kurd, or shi-ite. I think these countries, like Afghanistan and Iraq should all get a standard pre-fabricated constitution and set of laws, manufactured by the United Nations. At least for the duration of the occupation, and with safeguards built in that you can't change some laws except with 2/3 or 3/4 approval of parliament after the occupation. One size fits all, ethnicity completely ignored.They also should have imposed martial law from the start, that would have saved a lot of lives, and would have speeded up rebuilding tremendously. But of course this wouldn't look good on TV, especially with namby pamby commentators lamenting the apparent hypocrisy of introducing martial law, while saying to instill freedom in the country.But the USA can try again to get it right. I believe Sudan is next on the list, because there is an Al-Queda related genocide occurring there now.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I don't understand how you can believe that in the face of things likethis:

quote:

---

Memos in 2002 paved way to prison abuse
Justice and Defense justified the mistreatment as an option
Wednesday, June 23, 2004
BY CURT ANDERSON
Associated Press

​

WASHINGTON -- After the invasion of Afghanistan, President Bush claimed the right to waive anti-torture laws and treaties covering prisoners of war, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld authorized guards to strip detainees and threaten them with dogs, according to documents released yesterday.

---

So what you're saying is, if I say "hey, it's ok to torture those guys, and it might be useful" and you go ahead and do it, that's just coincidence? You're saying that even though I made it pretty clear that torture should occur, somehow, I'm not responsible for you agreeing? I just don't understand.When someone in authority gives an order, or a suggestion, it's not coincidence when those suggestions or orders are carried out. The culpability remains with those who gave the order. I don't think any great feat of efficiency was required here.Moreover, I would presume that as a former member of the armed services, you know that what servicemen do is follow orders. And I've never met anybody that invents unpleasant work for them to do. You're telling me that some bored guards suddenly decided that they would make their lives astronomically harder and torture prisoners, instead of playing cards or something?When guards get bored, they get careless and inattentive. They don't set up an insititutional system of torture. It just defies reason to think that this sort of corruption started anywhere but near the top. Well, I'm not privy to anything that hasn't been in the paper, but repeated public documents have made clear that the vast majority of detainees at Abu Ghraib were suspected of no crime. This is the position of the Red Cross, who heard it directly from Army intelligence. I was fairly sure that I explained this; you might want to go back and re-read. What we did was worse because we're held to a higher standard, as we should be. Moreover, we all bear responsibility for the actions of the leaders we elect. Saudi Arabia has official government agents to enforce Shari'a, like most of the other countries in the reigion. How is that not theocracy? Or any Shiite, most likely. Same for the other two. You think that's going to work itself out? In the next 2 days?I'll be pleasantly surprised if I'm wrong, and I hope I am. But it doesn't look likely. If we do as shitty a job in Iraq as we did in Afghanistan, they're screwed.

As the old saw goes, "the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over again and expecting different results."

No, of course not.But we can hardly get Americans to participate in government. Let's not assume that every single Iraqi concieves of government as something they have the power to participate in.

quote:

---

Claim what? I don't understand what you mean here.

---

This claim:

quote:

---

That some idiotic servicemen chose to do idiotic things

---

... rather than it being a normal property of exposure to war and the attendant dehumanisation, you are claiming it is a special, personal failing on the part of individuals.

quote:

---

That is not logical deduction. The same reasoning infers that the US condones child pornography because there is public outrage when photos are revealed.

---

No, the Pentagonb spokesman admitted that the authorities had had the photos and videotape for soke time; that was why Rumsfled was able to say that there was "worse to come". But they did nothing about this - despite complaints from the Red Cross and the Associated Press - until the photo's were leaked to the public and the scandal broke. There were also allegations made by released Camp X-Ray detainees of prevalent sexual and religious harassament.Therefore, it is quite clear, tat the US condoned this torture, and turned a blind eye to its practice, until the evidence of these misdeeds were leaked, wherepuon in belatedly and guiltily agreed to throw a sop.

quote:

---

Please quote the entire quote to make your point or provide a link to the memo.

---

Can't unformtunately as I do not subsribe to the Ney York Times, which published it (also washington post):Lawyers Decided Bans on Torture Didn't Bind Bush
By NEIL A. LEWIS and ERIC SCHMITTWASHINGTON, June 7 A team of administration lawyers concluded in a March 2003 legal memorandum that President Bush was not bound by either an international treaty prohibiting torture or by a federal antitorture law because he had the authority as commander in chief to approve any technique needed to protect the nation's security.The memo, prepared for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, also said that any executive branch officials, including those in the military, could be immune from domestic and international prohibitions against torture for a variety of reasons...Memo Offered Justification for Use of Torture
Justice Dept. Gave Advice in 2002
By Dana Priest and R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, June 8, 2004; Page A01In August 2002, the Justice Department advised the White House that torturing al Qaeda terrorists in captivity abroad "may be justified," and that international laws against torture "may be unconstitutional if applied to interrogations" conducted in President Bush's war on terrorism, according to a newly obtained memo... [/quote]The salient point is Rumsfelds statement that as long as the perpetrator: "a defendant is guilty of torture only if he acts with the express purpose of inflicting severe pain or suffering on a person within his control"... while this would not apply if the express purpose were extracting information. All this in the public domain.

quote:

---

Actually we do. Please refer to the UN inspection docs (can't remember off hand) that noted what we knew the Saddam regime to have and what had actually been documented as being destroyed. They did not add up. Sorry, that's just fact, not a right wing conspiracy.

---

Yes, that is a fact; this gave cause for SUSPICION. But as now mutliple inspection heads have conceded, the fact that there is a paperwork discrepancy is not certain KNOWLEDGE of deception.Now, while US intelligence was claiming that it certainly, absoluetly, positively knew not only that Saddam had the facility to make WMD, but that he had "vast stockpiles" and that his programme had been accelerated, it looked as quite reasonable to go investigating the "missing" ingredients. But this is not and never was clear evidence of duplicity, and depended on other claims (those of US intelligence) being true even for that reading - and those claims were not true. So it looks pretty clear cut: when Saddam said all the WMD had been destroyed, it looks now as if he was telling the truth. The ASSUMPTION that he was lying was convenient propaganda (and character assisination).

quote:

---

Uh, I 'notice it now' because the Iraqis did not reveal the documents showing how the oil for food scam worked (charge 10% more for products in cash, pocket the overage) until the US took down the Saddam govt and such docs were available. How were you able to come by this information before everyone else in outside of Iraq?

---

Haha. From defectors, refugees, all those other people who levelled excatly these allegations for over a decade in their numerous appeals to the West to cease its embargo. They went to demonstrations in our capital cities - I know, becuase I marched next to them. Where were you?I mean, this was a notoriously corrupt state run by a dictator - why did you EXPECT it to be all clean and elegant in the first place? We made the people dependant on the state, and the state milked that dependance for all it was worth.

quote:

---

Yes. So what? You confuse freedom and democracy of the individual with that of the state. So do you espouse the state's freedom to engage and support worldwide terrorism?

---

Well, I first point out thats irrelevant in the case of Iraq.Secondly, yes I do: I see no reason to prevent poor countries from the foreign exercise of force while tolerating rich countries doing so. US bombings are also terrorism; they overtly seek to coerce a states policy through violence or the threat of violence. What you dismissively describe as "terrorism" is every bit as legitimate as the US military, or any other military.

quote:

---

Ask the Germans, the Japanese, the Israelis, the Phillipinos, the Haitians, the Austrians...

---

A weak case IMO; Germany has a special European history and a mea culpa; the Japanese used the opportunity to carry out a social democratioc trnasition thatvhad hitherto been frustrated; the Israelis carved themselves a state through terrorism, the Haitians and Philipines both remain American colonies... Austria had a long history as a state..

quote:

---

Yeah, America has done nothing but kill people. No contributions to science, culture, art, literature, trade, oh wait, DEMOCRACY.

---

Logical fallacy, exageration to an illogical extreme: I didn't say that would be America's ONLY legacy. But does recognising the power of German art (like say Brecht) undermine the horror of the holocaust? You're applying the reflex Manichaenism again, insisting I either be uncritically for America or implacably against it and all its works, or attempting to cast me in that role. I suggest you adopt a more adult approach.And as for "democracy" I'm not sure what great claim America has here. For being the last place were slaves were owned requiring much violence? For giving up Habeus Corpus, thus reducing its citizens rights below those guaranteed by the Magna Carta? For having ther highest proportion of incarcerated citizens of any OECD state?Where are America's great democratic credentials?OTOH, America does have nearly one foreign intervention every year in the last hundred. America's role as global aggressor is indisputable, far more strongly represented than any nominal 'democratic' reputation. Indeed, given how frequently the American state supports dictators (Pervez Mussharaf, anyone? Pinochet? Saddam?) it could be easily said that America stands as an enemy of democracy world wide.This message has been edited by contracycle, 06-28-2004 07:32 AM