[grandpa]

Quote by: The Black Ghost 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.

I mentioned it because it's relevant. It's not like I started talking about the Clash or the Ramones.

Anyway, I don't see any evidence that Saddam "knew it was coming" anymore than anyone else. But really, there is more evidence that the citizens of the US were a bigger threat to Iraqis, given what their tax dollars have supported over there -- to put it oh so gently. The idea that wars needn't be defensive has been around for centuries, and anyone with a brain knows what it's really about. And isolation is isolation. At most it can allow for a Civil War. But when countries start attacking others, it is not isolationism.

Quote by: The Black Ghost 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.

In general, I think they're saying we should cater to their interests, even at the expense of our own, which is syetematic inequality. In this discussion, its more fitting to judge every institution by what it does. Taken as a whole, I do not think that state-capitalist and militarist institutions are a sterling example of "being fair to individuals."

Quote by: The Black Ghost 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.

I should have made myself clearer: They use policies to destroy human lives, and related facts with them. They are too big to let uncomfortable truths get in their way. They learn things simply to control and neutralize them. They acknowledge facts and use rhetoric in order to feel the public. That's what I was meaning to say. For example, Netanyahu once said: "...obviously if young Palestinians have a job, if investments are made in Ramallah, if restaurants
open in Jenin, if businesses flourish in Hebron, this makes peace more
possible and more worthwhile for the Palestinians" -- yet he most certainly wants more Israeli settlements. That's how nationalism works.
PM Netanyahu conference call to Conference of Presidents 21-Jul-2009

Largely because of such tactics, we end up with results like the following:
"Sixty-four percent (64%) view the United States as a positive role model for
human rights. The same percentage of voters say the world would be a better
place if other nations followed our example. Earlier surveys have found that
roughly six-out-of-ten voters believe that American society is generally
fair and decent."
Most Americans Proud of U.S. History, Say Other Nations Should Follow America’s Lead - Rasmussen Reports™

Quote by: The Black Ghost 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?

First of all, minding one's own business is not necessary "pacifist." Neither do pacifists usually recommend we "do nothing." They may just simply realize there are other options. Some may have said, for example, that we should have let the inspection process continue to better prove that Saddam had nothing. That's not "doing nothing," in any case. Plenty of people -- pacifist and otherwise -- knew the immense risks America was taking. But a significant number of others -- mostly very badly informed folks -- felt that we were there fighting those that struck us on 9-11. Given that fact, it's no mystery why Thomas Jefferson once said, "People who don¹t read newspapers are better off than those who do because it is better to be uninformed than misinformed."

And, as Tamim Ansary noted, "When people speak of 'having the belly to do what needs to be
done' they're thinking in terms of having the belly to
kill as many as needed. Having the belly to overcome any
moral qualms about killing innocent people. Let's pull
our heads out of the sand."
Bomb Afghanistan to Stone Age? It's Been Done

Anybody could see that as the underlying message and liken it to the mentality of common criminals, which would be very accurate. Of course, the killings of common criminals tend to be on a far more limited scale. The war on Iraq is not so limited. It's part of a growing and very real effort at world domination. Retaliation is practically inevitable, and not just from Muslims.

Quote by: The Black Ghost 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.

What he meant was America will determine the final fate of Iraq, as it has been trying to do for years, with ongoing support by Britain. Again, if we were really concerned about preventing Iraqis as victims of certain terrorist attacks, we wouldn't have started this war; knowing the likely dangers not only of our aistrikes and such, but also of retaliatory and ethno-religious violence within Iraq and beyond its official borders. This is proven by recent US-Iraq history. You, and others like you, are mostly trying to save face with some type of "victory" explanation, and various excuses. Implied, for example, is that soldiers can only act terribly if it is "against orders," or if it is "a mistake." But this is not true.

As Vets' Call to Conscience stated:
"No soldier can know beforehand when enough will be enough,
when she or he must dissent from what is clearly wrong. When that time
comes, she may lay her life down against war; or he may, like Hugh
Thompson, the U.S. hero of the My Lai massacre, act to save lives. As
veterans we are laying out our experience on these questions."
Indymedia UK - Who is Putting the Troops in Harms Way?

If "some people will act like criminals in any country they go to," that's all the more reason to not arm them and send them abroad.