View Single Post
Old 05-28-2007, 07:19 PM   #78
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
If you really think this would work you're fairly naive.
But once again, you've failed to provide any cogent reasons why it wouldn't work, Tot. You've just listed a lot of either incorrect or irrelevant things that do not support your assertions. And I'll go through them one by one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
England couldn't have kept India if it tried. 2 world wars in a quarter century and the rise of a bipolar US-USSR political landscape reduced England to a second rate world power.
Yes, England was a weakened power by 1946, but they were still comparitively more effective as an armed force and an international threat than Saddam's regime was following the first Gulf War. Iraqi military resources were positively crippled by decades of war, and the main thing... the MOST important thing keeping the Iraqi people from overthrowing their oppressive government... were US/UK sanctions and bombings. So what's your point? That a dictatorship has to be in a weakened state before people can effectively overthrow it? Perhaps so. But Saddam's regime WAS in a weakened state, throughout the nineties and up until our illegal and immoral invasion, therefore if we hadn't crippled the Iraqi public, they might well have overthrown Saddam.

So this argument hardly benefits you. If anything it benefits me more.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
The Vietnamese kicked the French out of Indochina w/in a decade of WW2 ending, and not with non-violence for that matter.
And the US promptly began punishing said Vietnamese for such temerity!

But what are you trying to say, that oppressive occupying regimes can be overthrown from within by revolutionary violence? Of course they can. They can also be overthrown by non-violent methods. So which should we be encouraging, funding and striving for? Which is more conducive to peace and the preservation of life... and which is more moral? The latter, of course.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Even had the US/UK not supported SH in any way, there were still the Soviets and French, not to mention SH using Stalinesque tactics to control his regime.
You're attempting to imply that US/UK support for Saddam's atrocities made no meaningful difference... And that's just ludicrous. I mean, really. Take away the political and financial support of the world's number one superpower... and what do you get? A severely weakened dictator.

Furthermore, the fact that others do an immoral thing doesn't make it right, doesn't make it okay, in fact doesn't mitigate it AT ALL... when we also do it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
It is you that is mistaken. Apples and oranges. Iraq ain't India, it's probably arguable to what extent Suharto wasn't just shoved aside at the upper tiers of power by competitors.
Once again, formless nonsense. You state "Iraq wasn't like India or Indonesia!!" without providing any logical argument to show that the situation in Iraq was such that popular struggle would NOT have overthrown Saddam, had we not bludgeoned the Iraqi people with our sanctions and violence.

As for your comment regarding Suharto, it's just self-serving. Popular struggle brought pressure to bear on his autocratic regime. Without that popular struggle, the same pressure would not have been brought to bear, end of story.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
A more apt comparison would be NK and Iraq. If KJI can be moved aside by the paradigm you suggest, then that at least would be proof that you weren't indulging in wishful thinking.
Whether Kim Jong Il is deposed by his people or not has ZERO bearing on the uncontested fact that common people can and HAVE overthrown evil dictators in the past. So this statement makes no salient point.

As for your contention that North Korea is comparable to Iraq under Saddam's rule... It's both self-serving and completely incorrect. Iraq's military was so crippled that it was no danger even to its neighbors following years of US bombings and sanctions. North Korea's government DOES still have sufficient military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Which is largely why the US/UK haven't invaded it, methinks. It's not weak and defenceless enough. Yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Still, the rub is that any "peaceful" organization would be given that kind of latitude required for your "non-violent" solution to take hold in thuggish dictatorships.
This makes no sense. Perhaps you're trying to say something about revolutionaries becoming evil dictators when they get into power... but you'll have to clarify.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Maybe Venezuela and Cuba should go on your list for non-violent "change".
Venezuela and Cuba? Hahahah. Cuba's not a bad place to live, despite years of US military, political and financial persecution they have quite a high average standard of living there, certainly one of the highest in the region. Cuba is not the ultimately evil bugbear that Fox news likes to make out.

The US government has always hated Castro's Cuba because, and I quote from a declassified 1964 state department document, Castro: "represents a successful defiance of the United States, a negation of our whole hemispheric policy of almost a century and a half." It's that simple. Venezuela's a similar story, not least because of the co-operation between the Chavez and Castro regimes.

Once again Tot, I encourage you to form your opinions using facts, rather than neo-con propaganda.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Also, Hitler wasn't "Hitler" (ie the evil boogeyman of WW2 infamy) prior to 1938. Would have been interesting to see how the world would've turned out if the "give peace a chance in our time" crowd had NOT been in a position to screw up the world through wishful inaction. An ounce of prevention would no doubt have proven more palatable than kilotons of cure.
Firstly, it's arguable that Hitler was guilty of boogeyman-esque war crimes when he assisted the Franco regime's massacres during the Spanish "civil war" (read: nazi atrocity exhibition) at least as early as 1937, which I think you'll agree is prior to 1938.

Secondly, I'm not sure what you're trying to say... are you trying to say that someone should have murdered Hitler when he was much younger, BEFORE he committed any of his crimes? Which is to say... are you implying that people should be punished because they might commit a crime in the future? (which was essentially the stated basis for the 2003 illegal invasion of Iraq, in fact.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Totenkopf
BTW, "throwing $$ at a problem" is NO solution. I believe you've countlessly brought this up with regard to the current situation in Iraq.
Hmmm. Actually you'll find (if you actually READ any of my posts on Iraq) that I have repeatedly stated that we have NEVER put enough money into the rebuilding of Iraq. "Throwing money at the problem" might at the very least be an interesting change from what we've been doing, which is either "keeping most of the money for ourselves" or "losing quite a lot of the Iraqi people's money."


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may: quote & reply,