View Single Post
Old 05-28-2007, 08:51 PM   #79
Totenkopf
English spoken in What
 
Totenkopf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: What?
Posts: 4,778
Imperialist Meatbags Guild Member The Walking Carpets Guild Member Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by al
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.
You haven't said much beyond..If it worked here, there's no reason it couldn't work there. I don't have to prove that it wouldn't work, you have to prove that it would. Just citing what you think COULD happen is a meaningless and empty reply. Also, to quote you, self-serving.
Quote:
Originally Posted by al
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.
Seriously, al, if this is the best you've got....it might've happened....then you still have nothing. And the argument benefits you only in a fantasy world. Besides, considering that they didn't overthrow SH at the end of the First Gulf War, when they might have had a chance before all those pesky sanctions, your argument is basically bupkiss.
Quote:
Originally Posted by al
And the US promptly began punishing said Vietnamese for such temerity!
Self-serving irrelevancy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by al
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.
You're sounding a lot like those silly people who say things like communism (for instance) doesn't work because WE (ie the self-deluded purveyors and disciples of the ideology in question) haven't tried it yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by al
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.
Once again, you infer things that are not in someone else's statements. I know you've got a bug up your arse about asserting your overbearing sense of morality into every occasion, but quit reaching. To spell it out for you....take the US and GB out of the picture and you still have other powers who benefitted from SH's rule. Given that one of them was a superpower (the USSR, remember them?), it's foolish to assert like you do that SH would have easily been removed from power through the peaceful means that you blather on about constantly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by al
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.
Just a reminder, al, you're the one making the argument that it could work, but consistently fail to prove it. I don't have to prove a negative, remember. Besides, as you should well know, the middle east is full of dictatorships which are not overthrown by people who haven't been burdened with crippling sanctions. End of story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by al
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.

Yes, apt. Neither SH nor KJI (let alone his father) would have tolerated the interference you advocate allowing to take place. Given that it's easier to fold in the face of intimidation than stand up to it, it's unlikely your pipedream peace activist agenda would have been sown on anything other than rocky soil in either country. The only think self-serving so far has been the deluded contention that peaceful activism will ALWAYS work in the end. END OF STORY.
Quote:
Originally Posted by al
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.
Way off the mark here (par for the course, as always). I basically addressed this above.


Quote:
Originally Posted by al
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.
Earth to al......aw nevermind, you're in your own little universe, billions and billions of LYs away. If you think that Castro's Cuba or Chavez's Venezuela are great places, then you are deluded (remember, that's just merely a neutral term, so no derision......unless you're willing to concede that you use that term the same way you'll ascribe to me now. ) Frankly, I won't take your word for it, no offense. Your obsession with neo-cons is very telling.


Quote:
Originally Posted by -al
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, *snarky comment snipped*
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.)
No, al. What I'm saying is that the spineless "peace in our time" proponents should have stood up to Herr Hitler as early as 1934-38 when he was busy openly defying the terms of Versailles. Reclaiming the Ruhr, annexing the Sudetenland and the Anschluss should have been the wake up call they needed to take another look at what he was trying to do. Given that he had spelled out in Mein Kampf what his intentions were, it would have been the equivalent of a no brainer. 1939-1945 was the result of their cowardice. How many had to die so that the craven and misguided peace crowd could have their moment in the sun? 50+ million. So much for the superior morality of the peacenik.

Quote:
Originally Posted by al
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."
Do you intentionally misinterpret people? You've griped about all the money wasted (from your pov) on Iraq and how it's such a mess. No doubt b/c the money was spent on the "illegal/immoral" war. The point is that throwing money at a problem is no solution, regardless of the desired outcome. Several examples of how throwing money at problems doesn't work are: sending lots of aid to corrupt african regimes in famine situations, only to watch it go to the warlords and corrupt govt bureaucrats; we spend tons of money in this country on education, higher than many countries on a per capita basis, yet consistently lag behind many nations when students are tested; and then there's the wars on poverty and drugs. No victory, just more poor people and more drugs in the streets. Sending and spending $$$ does not =success. BTW, I'm sure the Dems in congress will be disillusioned to find out that it's been Iraq's $$ (and not ours) that's been squandered. One less thing for them to lob at the current prez.


Quote:
Originally Posted by sa
If we were to discuss classical political principles, you'd probably find that I was simultaneously more conservative than you, as well as more liberal.


Quote:
And vice versa, no doubt....

al....by definition, he will be more conservative in the areas where you are more liberal and vice versa. That was just sloppy (and immoral )on your part.

Last edited by Totenkopf; 06-01-2007 at 03:15 AM.
Totenkopf is offline   you may: quote & reply,