the dynamite politics thread

[Villain]

All of it didn't fit in one post, so here's the rest:

"Terrorists and terror states do not reveal these threats with fair notice, in formal declarations--and responding to such enemies only after they have struck first is not self-defense, it is suicide. The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now."

Essentially, President Bush is saying that a country has the right to invade and occupy another country without any evidence that the targeted country has the intention, willingness, or ability to strike first. This would give virtually any country the right to invade any other. Most of Iraq's neighbors do not consider Iraq to be a threat, either now or in the perceivable future.
"As we enforce the just demands of the world, we will also honor the deepest commitments of our country."
Violating the U.S. Constitution and international legal covenants to which the U.S. government is legally bound is, in reality, a dishonor to the deepest commitments of the United States.
"Unlike Saddam Hussein, we believe the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty. And when the dictator has departed, they can set an example to all the Middle East of a vital and peaceful and self-governing nation."
If the United States really believes the Iraqi people are deserving and capable of human liberty, then why did the U.S. support Saddam Hussein during the height of his terror? And why are the leading candidates the United States hopes to install in Baghdad to replace the current dictatorship lacking anything remotely resembling democratic credentials?
"The United States, with other countries, will work to advance liberty and peace in that region."
Then why does the United States support dictatorships in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Kuwait, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, and other autocratic regimes? And why does the United States support Moroccan, Israeli, and Turkish occupation forces? Such policies belie any claim of support for liberty and peace.
"Our goal will not be achieved overnight, but it can come over time. The power and appeal of human liberty is felt in every life and every land. And the greatest power of freedom is to overcome hatred and violence, and turn the creative gifts of men and women to the pursuits of peace."
To unleash bombs and missiles on cities, to engage in war-mongering, and to lie to the American people and the world in order to rationalize such an invasion is itself a form of hatred and violence.
"That is the future we choose. Free nations have a duty to defend our people by uniting against the violent. And tonight, as we have done before, America and our allies accept that responsibility. Good night, and may God continue to bless America."
And may God forgive President Bush and the congressional leaders of both parties who are responsible for unleashing such horrific violence against the people of Iraq.

Stephen Zunes is an associate professor of politics and chair of the Peace & Justice Studies Program at the University of San Francisco. He is Middle East editor for the Foreign Policy in Focus Project (online at www.fpif.org) and author of Tinderbox: U.S. Middle East Policy and the Roots of Terrorism (Common Courage: 2002), which can be ordered from FPIF at the Interhemispheric Resource Center (IRC, online at www.irc-online.org).

 

[Villain]

Ah, exactly what I wanted to discuss with you about:

don't you think some kind of relationship between country based on aggression or dominance is, at present, almost unavoidable? just a question. (the rest i'm not commenting on because i trust your cultivated opinion).

First of all, I thank you for your trust (although I sense a hint of sarcasm there).

To the question about "accepting the horrors of reality in the world" versus "dreaming of a utopia with eternal peace and equality", you are probably more correct than me - if we are speaking of the present day only! For I believe that the future could be different. Things like slavery and despotism were commonplace in the most civilized countries a mere few centuries ago - and where are we now? Wouldn't the logical next step in mankind's "evolution" be its getting rid of greedy superpowers, whose supremacy is based upon military strength and terrorism? It might be a utopia in our lifetimes, but not necessarily in those of the future generations. What if the idea of an imperialistic country that disobeys the UN and breaks international laws left and right was as distant for our grandchildren as the idea of feodalism in Europe is for us?

And, aren't we living in a world of constant change - with the current rapid advancements in science and technology, shouldn't we be advancing in the fields of political sociology (or whatever it should be called - I'm bad with these terms) as well? Some people claim that the leaps of knowledge we (as "the mankind") have made during the past century surpass those that we have made all through our history before that. Why are we still stagnated to the level of imperialism already witnessed over two thousand years ago?

The first step towards this possible future for our race, would IMHO be the destruction of USA's superiority - by any means necessary. I wouldn't see the possible (although highly unlikely according to my current knowledge) nuclear strikes against any major US industrial, military or even population centers as any way negative in the light of the events of the past fifty or so years.

Of course, the other (less bloody) option would be the way Rome or the Soviet Union lost their power - through a slow crumbling that would in the end drop the power of those countries back to (and below) the level of the other nations of the world. However, in the light of the recent changes in American attitudes towards the rest of the world, I can hardly see such a degeneration happening in the foreseeable future. That's why I'm supporting (though "in spirit" only) any action that could possibly reduce the economical, military or political power of the USA. Note that I couldn't possibly count the events of 11.9.2001 towards this goal of mine, quite the opposite, as their consequences actually were very negative and many lives were lost for nothing.

Now, a strike that would truly destroy the power of the USA, that's something different...

-Villain

 

[rahvin]

First of all, I thank you for your trust (although I sense a hint of sarcasm there).

uh, no, there was no sarcasm at all. i really trust your opinion on the matter to be based on a wider range of facts than mine.

i need time to digest the long quotes in your earlier posts, plus your view of the future. though i cringe when i read theories where the loss of lives is not frowned upon - it seems like each life is invaluable when other countries are at stake, but they become disquietingly disposable in your "plan" to crush the usa. isn't it possible that this is some sort of unconscious nihilism? after all if we're not the victims we cannot but be the perpetrators ourselves...

i'll get deep into this discussion in a while, now i need rest for weary eyes, i'm afraid.

rahvin.

 

[BiatchGuy]

I wouldn't see the possible (although highly unlikely according to my current knowledge) nuclear strikes against any major US industrial, military or even population centers as any way negative in the light of the events of the past fifty or so years.

As someone who lives just up the road from Washington D.C., I "slightly" disagree.

We (the American public) need to take back our country, make the democracy more transparent and responsive, reform elections, etc.; now, how to accomplish this in a system which has been molded to prevent such a reclaiming of power, that's the tough question.




btw, fuck the war

 

[Malaclypse]

as for the future, today i read france, belgium and germany came up with a plan to establish an own EU army. maybe this war even helps to get europe to be molded together into something bigger after all. suddenly many people see the need to "join forces" and to evolve an european code of laws. i hope that in the log run, europe will be a federal community of states, just like germany or the U.S. are now. Eventually even later mankind will be able to put aside all differences and build one nation. but that can only be dreamed about in these times...
vc (drunk, disillusioned, dreaming)

 

[|ngenius]

Ah, exactly what I wanted to discuss with you about:

To the question about "accepting the horrors of reality in the world" versus "dreaming of a utopia with eternal peace and equality", you are probably more correct than me - if we are speaking of the present day only! For I believe that the (...)

When talking in terms of evolution you should take care about the line of progress that evolution might take, and consider the negative side on the scale. Yes, I am the optimistic, the one who support that positive change you're talking about. But, let me assume the role of devil's advocate, there are more possibilities available in our uncertain future.

You talked about the changes of the last century, slavery was abolished, so was the despotism in those civilized countries, and the last hundred years have reported us a break point in the countinuous line of progression, regarding the technology and, consequently, the way of life. But in my opinion, that change, these improvements imply more a change of the kind of despotism than a politic mend. Is not our beloved Mr. Bush something similar to a feudal lord, who, thirsty of conquests and glory, has pushed the world to this war?

The way of life has changed, that's pretty obvious. But the antagonic power division and hierarchy stand in a different shape. People still die to support the so-called "first world", there are more wars, more crimes than ever, and more confusion in that control of information that isolate us from everything that might break our comfortable and "easy" way of life. Maybe you think that I am going too far, and I hope you're right. However, since the spanish president has taken us to a war we clearly were rejecting, my concepts of freedom and democracy have changed substantially. So the question is, are we talking about evolution or involution? Are we actually free? My personal answer is: yes, almost we count on our personal freedom to decide. And personally, you count on me to struggle and push things to that utopia I also dream with. But I assure you that anything that might involve destruction won't lead us to that utopia, even talking about that (supposedly abolished) imperialism the USA is showing in Iraq these days. (Note for americans: My "Imperialism" acception is NOT an offense, but a definition. If you don't trust me, read the long Villain's post above to know more about the deep incongruence Bush led you into).

I am fairly disappointed with my world, here in Barcelona, so I can't say I see zillions of possibilities to change a world that is probably falling into the nihilism the dwarf talked about, more than mend and become something fair and better. I love to be surprised, anyway, so I won't stop fighting.



|ng (Half of the world die by starvation, and the other half die to lose weight)

 

[Thanatos]

The first step towards this possible future for our race, would IMHO be the destruction of USA's

If that happened, China (or some other country) would stand up to take the "leech of the world" title, don't you think? And even if all the world nations had exactly the same militar/economic/politic opportunities, there would always be a madman, wheter his name would be george, saddam or silvio, cause there's always somebody who desires to impose his will to others, who would rush his country for military supremacy, because that seems to be the nature of man, you just need to open a history book and you'll see what I'm talking about

 

[hyena]

@everyone: enough with the silvio bashing! okay, berlusconi is not the model statesman, actually there's a few things about his policy that should be seriously amended, but he's no dictator, madman etc.
we are a normal country with a normal prime minister, of course you can agree or not with his views, but he's no bogeyman!

 

[Thaumiel]

Thaumiel: you still have to explain to me why, in all your rage to defend Iraq, you are attacking Italy, a notorious non-arab, non-US-oppressed, non-significant nation.

h (about to die happy)

Defend Iraq? By no means! Hussein is a dictator oppressing his population, but the same thing is true with a lot of USA allies (say Israel, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc.). I just happen to care about the humans living there, who were massecred by the USA.

Attacking Italy? I just pointed some crimes its goverment and ruling oligarchy committed against the countries population. You and Rahvin were attacking your fellow citizens, by assaulting the majority's intelligence.

Finaly, never make the mistake to consider a country non-significant. USA is not the Roman Empire.

 

[rahvin]

@vultureculture: actually i think this war will result in a break in the european community.

@hyena: i beg to differ. he's no dictator and he's certainly not a madman, but berlusconi is far from a "normal" prime minister. the extent of his economical influence on this country, not to mention the charges he collected for a number of crimes, would have him instantly kicked out of any political activity in any country with monitoring organisms that actually work with a little freedom of movement, instead of sheepishly adhering to the policy of "sticking to the guy with the sign 'the buck starts here'".
regardless of the value of berlusconi's party's politics, he's absolutely unfit to be a prime minister and a disgrace for the cause of right-wing parties in this country.

@thaumiel: i'm the best italy-basher around anyway.

rahvin.

 

[Thaumiel]

@everyone: enough with the silvio bashing! okay, berlusconi is not the model statesman, actually there's a few things about his policy that should be seriously amended, but he's no dictator, madman etc.
we are a normal country with a normal prime minister, of course you can agree or not with his views, but he's no bogeyman!

Well, since you (conservative, anti-communist and war-loving) agree that Silvio's goverment is has problems with its policy, what could everyone say. Don't worry though, Italy is safe from the states since they didn't invade Iraq because it has a dictatorship, like Italy

 

[Thaumiel]

Let's turn inward for a change, since I think that until now it's obvious that even our conservative Italian friends have agreed to some extent with the rest of the world's view.

This crisis didn't create any new problem to the EU, it just made obvious the ongoing ones. EU lacks in co-operation outside the financial field. If we were to go to war we don't even have a common plan to defend the union. Also France and Britain are not willing to alter their national diplomacy, while the other countries change camps in foreign policy depending on which party governs them (right wing turns towards the USA interests, while center-left tries to defend the freedom from the atlantic domination). Also with the new countries coming (if the pass the European Parliament vote) are clearly submitted to the US politics.There is also the problem with the Turkey.

This invasion has only one positive consequence, it made peaople thing question and voice opinions. American commercialism made us for many forget these.

 

[rahvin]

Well, since you (conservative, anti-communist and war-loving) agree that Silvio's goverment is has problems with its policy, what could everyone say. Don't worry though, Italy is safe from the states since they didn't invade Iraq because it has a dictatorship, like Italy

the only dictatorship around here is that of mediocre minds trying to impose on the few who try to think for themselves any unconditional stereotyped idea they're told to adopt, be it war, peace, saving the whales, killing the mooses, or heavy metal.

with due respect, i don't think you're informed enough to pass judgement over the dictatorship-level of countries that are (a) not often mentioned in international reports; (b) not right under your supposedly attentive nose; (c) not speaking in a language that, to my knowledge, you can read or understand. labelling people like me a "conservative" only goes to show the extent of your ignorance, since my views on national politics have not been disclosed so far and you base your judgement on scarps of information collected while addressing other issues. this surely does not help me to trust your other opinions on international politics, because now i'm afraid they might be just as uninformed as the ones on my political stance.
if you could write a short essay on the history of italian politics starting from the '70s to the present day, i might reconsider, but all remarks about the state of affairs in my country so far have been vague and superficial, if not outright erroneous.

our government is doing what it has done with such brilliant results through the last two wars: trying to hang in the balance between two different positions so as not to alienate anybody. while on the one hand it gives support to the americans in their military operations - in compliance with international treaties - on the other it tries not to upset its european friends by promoting and giving resonance to the vast majority of pro-peace manifestations in the country.
in a not surprising display of double standards, the italian government publicly praises the anti-war propaganda coming from the vatican, while at the same time it abides to most requests of the usa.
disagreement is therefore pretty scarce because many have no idea what to agree or disagree with, since we're officially firmly standing in both shoes as always. however, all forms of protest and complaints are freely allowed to take over public buildings and streets at any given time of any given day, which is not something that i have seen happen often in dictatorships. another thing that is hardly present under totalitarian regimes is an abundant dose of critics in the newspapers, that are often aligned with the bleeding hearts who think we ought to forget about oil because it's enough if we love each other.
moreover, there has not been a single day since the government settled in, that personal and political attacks have not been carried - quite efficiently, in some cases - against a vast portion of the people in that government. did they deserve it? i think yes. but can anyone - with some knowledge of the situation - tell me how this would have been possible in a dictatorship?

rahvin.

 

[Villain]

though i cringe when i read theories where the loss of lives is not frowned upon - it seems like each life is invaluable when other countries are at stake, but they become disquietingly disposable in your "plan" to crush the usa. isn't it possible that this is some sort of unconscious nihilism?

It is - and I might be even conscious about it. Despite all my barking here, I don't believe I could "push the button", if the task was upon me in the end.

But as I said, the other way (the one BiatchGuy is talking about) seems far too unrealistic in my eyes. Sadly.

If we were living in 1941, would you rather have waited for the Nazi-Germany to "settle down" instead of bombing its cities? How many dead German civilians would have been too much? I don't know - but I must say that I would be willing to "pay" a rather high number in dead American civilians to see this current evil empire crushed.

-Villain

 

[Villain]

If that happened, China (or some other country) would stand up to take the "leech of the world" title, don't you think?

Possibly. Heck, most probably even. But for sure? No. One day, there must be an end to it. That's what I believe (or some days I wish I could believe) in.

Regarding the Nature of Man - a thousand years ago man's nature made us do things like raping every two-legged being we had lust for and killing every other creature we didn't like. Now, despite the amount of such activities even today, I say that we have developed - and we have developed our very nature in the process. I can see the nature of man developing even further, although it for sure won't happen overnight.

-Villain

 

[rahvin]

Regarding the Nature of Man - a thousand years ago man's nature made us do things like raping every two-legged being we had lust for and killing every other creature we didn't like. Now, despite the amount of such activities even today, I say that we have developed - and we have developed our very nature in the process. I can see the nature of man developing even further, although it for sure won't happen overnight.

well, i think that there might be an upper limit. mankind stopped raping/killing ruthlessly because on its stopping depended its survival in the foreseeable future. but the more the consequences of our survival strategies are projected farther in the future, the less our mind is able to actually assimilate what behaviours can be considered "efficient".
it doesn't take long to realize that if i kill my fellow citizens, yes, i get to eat more of the prey we killed, but i'm gonna have a few problems with slaying the next. it takes a lot more to understand that some economical standards ought to be provided to all members of the community in order for it to prosper.
it might take entirely too much or something we as a species do not have to set a rule that eradicates prevarication so dramatically that mental energies can be directed somewhere else for good.

rahvin.

 

[hyena]

i concur with what rahvin said on our lack of dictatorial features. (oh, rahve, he was calling me a conservative, not you, and this makes slightly more sense ).

as for the prime minister's normalcy, i would say that nowadays a number of western countries, including the US, have leaders that "bought" their position with their economic connections etc. , therefore i don't see what's strange about berlusconi. as far as the crimes are concerned... well, you dont get many countries where the PM is investigated for every kind of crime, but you don't even get many countries with a tortuous history of connections between crime and politics as ours. i'm not saying that being a criminal is right, i am saying that it might be hard to find a team of politicians who are untouched by investigations (oh, this is another proof of italy's non-dictatorial status!). of course this is why all the posterboys shown to foreign countries are former central bank governors and not professional politicians, or entrepreneurs-turned-politicians.

 

[Salamurhaaja]

This is mainly for the finns, but I thought I post it anyway:

USA jahtaa nyt myös Saddamin rahoja

Amerikkalaisen Forbes-lehden mukaan Irakin diktaattori Saddam Hussein
on maailman kolmanneksi rikkain hallitsija Saudi-Arabian kuningas Fahdin
ja Brunein sulttaanin jälkeen. Saddamin henkilökohtaisen omaisuuden
arvo on miltei 1,9 miljardia euroa. Yhdysvaltain hallituksen mukaan oikea
luku olisi kuitenkin lähempänä 6,5 miljardia euroa.

....

Nyt amerikkalaisista talousasiantuntijoista koostuva ryhmä yrittää
kuumeisesti selvittää viime sodan aikana kesken jääneen tehtävän:
minne Saddam ja hänen lähipiirinsä ovat kätkeneet öljy- ja muista
laillisista tai vähemmän laillisista kaupoista kokoamansa omaisuuden.

Hmmm, miksiköhän tämä ei yllätä yhtään?
Tosin lähde nyt on hieman kyseenalainen, mutta kuitenkin.

and seeing as this is from a "really" reliable source, I won't even
bother translating

NP: (The) C/Kovenant - Animatronic - Sindrom

"Mankind is just a whore always wanting more
As the flames grow higher and higher..."

 

[Salamurhaaja]

For those who don't read finnish, here is something else:

Jihad

Get down on your knees and feed the illusion
Get down on your knees and prolong the delusion
Superstition is the religion of the feeble mind
Liberty and Justice - The Illusions of mankind
A dogmatic expression in every direction
There is no redemption in divine intervention
The world is a disease that cannot be cured
The truth is a voice that cannot be heard

Jihad - The twisted hands of faith
Jihad - In the name of Hate
Jihad - The twisted hands of faith
Jihad - In the name of Hate

Hate is the solution to life's evolution
Love is a high that you cannot sustain
For each age is a dream that is dying
And freedom is a whore that we love to adore

Jihad - To be touched by the hands of God
Jihad - To be touched by the hands of God

Hate is the solution to life's evolution
Love is a high that you cannot sustain
For each age is a dream that is dying
And freedom is a whore that we love to adore

Jihad - To be touched by the hands of God
Jihad - To be touched by the hands of God

A dogmatic expression in every direction
There is no redemption in divine intervention
The world is a disease that cannot be cured
The truth is a voice that cannot be heard

(The) C/Kovenant - Animatronic - Jihad

 

[Salamurhaaja]

This is only the beginning, trust me, more stuff like this will happen.

Turkish incursion spells trouble

There has been an angry reaction from the Iraqi Kurds to the entry of
Turkish troops who crossed the border during Friday night and took up
positions in Kurdish-held northern Iraq.

....

The only consolation for the Kurds is that the Americans have also
made it clear that they are opposed to the Turkish move too, which is
unilateral and not co-ordinated with the coalition effort, as Washington
had been insisting.

Source: BBC News

Quite lovely how these things go, I can already see this escalating,
beyond US or anyone elses control... weee, go USA, you rule!!