[The Black Ghost]

Quote by: grandpa That is given as a response?

Why not?

If you're using the coercive power of government, or government ideology to restrict freedom and liberty, then yes, all of your statements directly above are accurate. That aside, there is NO credible evidence that Iraq was involved in the 9-11 attack or that they were a significant threat the the United States.

I dont know where the last part came into this, but that is true. They probably had no link to 9.11, although it is possible they knew something was going to happen (which Saddam would have gladly supported). About them being a significant threat--they may not be a threat ot the mainland, but they are a threat to US civilians and soldiers abroad, on their various duties in the middle east. They were also a threat because of the power they weilded with their oil. More importantly, the were a threat to their own people and the other Arab countries and US allies in the region. A war does not have to be fought purely in self-defense to be legit, considering isolationism is what usually brings nations into war anyways.

Well, they do want to keep people as lowly workers. People with power tend to abuse it quite frequently. It can be a CEO or some religious leader. Rev. Jerry Falwell, for example, once said "I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!" That's not a far cry from what a number of power-seekers wish to approximate in their own fields of interest. Christians tend to hate atheists and the rich tend to only care about others to the extent that they can charge them fees. All of this can be proven rather easily everyday.

I think a better generalization that encompasses all people is this: people tend to care more about people like themselves. However, to make sweeping generalizations is always unfair, so I judge every individual by what they do.

Administration after administration has not been allowing facts, or basic and decent principles, to inform policies.

That is not true at all. They have all the facts they need, more than we will ever hear. Many presidents have strong principles, maybe there have been examples of those who were not so good, but I think that comes down to "everyone is human". I would say that American presidents have more principle than most other nations.

You say this because you simply want US responsibility hidden before it could start. I'm sure you would justify US support of people like Suharto (Remembering A Shared History - Suharto and the U.S.) for similar reasons. And you constantly fail to see the irony of Bush's statments. He promised to spare - "in every way we can" - innocent Iraqis. But he also said, "If war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military - and we will prevail." That is actually quite a blatant contradiction, and now especially we know that, if we indeed want to avoid civilian casualties, we should not start a war.

That is the pacifist do-nothing way. We must avoid civilian casualties, but we also must do what must be done to help those people, and in turn, help ourselves. War is often branded as "evil" generally. However, is it more evil to kill to stop killings, or sit and watch others be killed and do nothing? Under what circumstances do you think war is neccesary--only in direct defense?

What he meant was, in the event of war, we will do everything in our power to prevent civilian deaths and protect the populace of Iraq. This was done, whether or not you are willing to accept it. There have been mistakes, errors, and even individual atrocities by soldiers who were acting against orders...but they are hardly preventable occurances--people will make some mistakes, circumstances will change, and some people will act like criminals in any country they go to.

Look at history. If the US really cared about the people of Cuba and the risk of someone like Castro coming into power, they wouldn't have supported Batista (for that matter, Batista arguably wasn't any better -- very few people said, "Bye Batista, we'll miss you!). The point is, you never know what can happen when you support thugs, or see people torn to shreds by the US bombs. I'm not sure why that's so hard to understand, other than your possibly being brainwashed into supporting virtually anything the US does, or could do.

Perhaps youve been brainwashed in the opposite manner. And to repeat a point you should have heard me say many times by now, I do not support every single action taken by every person or leader in the United States. Generally, I do, but I also have to take into account the other side.

Supporting dictators to promote certain governments was a terrible mistake in almost every situation, in retrospect. However, in the context of the times, things were very different. There were many more dictatorships in the past than their our now, and often when military action couldnt directly place a desired supporter in power, we went to the next best thing--the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Admittedly, a poor strategy, as it hurt our credibility, which in the end was more valuable than actually stopping communism. At the time though, that seemed like the greatest threat. It was the common fear, and there was some reason to fear it--so many people made many bad decisions in power to stop communists--because of paranoia more than anything. The Russians did the same to us.

Most of our nation's actions do nothing to indicate "moral compassion" and a "value placed on life and freedom." Even the best actions are undertaken for cynical motives to keep people in line and under the rule of authority. The very premise that an entity exists called "The United States," that is a part of all of us on "its" soil, is rather diabolical. History will judge the United States, but the judgment will never be accurate until we shed this premise and look at what the deluded masses have done in its name. In largescale politics, it's not that we have a run-in with this faker or that. The masses themselves are the fakers.

Can we drop the constant meaningless rhetoric? I keep expecting to hear you mention the New World Order and the Illumnati conspiracy. If you think that the US is such a terrible evil "Big Brother" then you are horribly deluded...we may not be perfect, but we're among the best and most free nations. As I said, if you want, start a revolution, see if you can find a good alternative to our government.

Britain had plenty of justifications for their projects in India, too. However, putting your "reality" (your kind of thinking, or not thinking) aside, this has been a counter-productive and undemocratic war, even with the Iraqi elections. Democracy is not something you can impose by a foreign occupation (1). Let's go back again to when Saddam was in power, when he was gassing Iranians and Kurds and is receiving direct help from U.S. foreign policy. Where was the "democracy" then? It was a mirage, pretty much like it is now. And it was just a small part of what made us one of the most feared and hated countries in the world. That perception alone tests your theory in a rather significant way, I would think.
After all, the Bush administration had been very straightforward about wishing to hijack the US government and military for their rather fascist goals, and Obama is apparently not entirely different.
Somalia may be the next target, but simply because they have oil.(2)[/QUOTE]
1. Well, would you rather we put a dictator in power? I mean, what the hell else is there to do? Tell me. Why shouldnt we help them establish a better government--obviously they want a representative government.
2. Regardless, is securing peace not better than the alternative?