the dynamite politics thread

[Salamurhaaja]

So you mean to tell me this would happen no matter who was president? I don't think so, this war was started by one man and one man only.

 

[Malaclypse]

sure, i could go on endlessly arguing about how bush himself is only a puppet on a string of dozens of old friends of his big daddy, how he is dependant on the checks the tobacco and oil industry shove up his arse, and so on. he merely is a pawn in this big game, but you are right, sometimes it's easier to focus hate on _some_ idiot. he's the executioner, not of his own ideas, right, but nevertheless he executes them. same goes with terrorists.

 

[rahvin]

well, what i mean to say is to try and avoid limiting the focus of any event to single individuals. this is not in order to pass any judgement (though you both know how i feel about the situation), just because when we're told about the nazi hitler is not the beginning and the end of that scenario. if we wanted to bash people, churchill would be a likely candidate too: he was at least as anti-jewish as hitler, for instance.
but instead we speak of right/wrong decisions taken by nations and determined by social/political currents. i think a better understanding of the situation would derive from concentrating on the real interests at stake instead of just calling people motherfuckers. i don't particularly dislike the bush administration, yet - hey - people are motherfuckers. what did you expect?

rahvin.

 

[Malaclypse]

then, what do you think are the real interests for the US to get involved? to keep eath a safe place to live in? to take revenge for all the poor suppressed iraquis? to fight a holy war and to shine brightfully in the eye of the ONE GOD? come on.
i guess it's money, along with some problems the veteran bush admins still have with gulf war 1. don rumsfeld and dick cheney fought this war before, for george bush.
and besides, i don't expect people to be motherfuckers when lives are at stake.

 

[Ormir]

i don't expect people to be motherfuckers when lives are at stake.

Where were the protesters when Saddam was gasing the kurds? Where were they when Saddam had thousands of Sunni muslims executed? Where were they when Saddam invaded Kuwait? Why did they start caring all of a sudden about Iraqi lives now that the USA is involved? Lives have been at stake for decades, and people looked away.

 

[rahvin]

then, what do you think are the real interests for the US to get involved? to keep eath a safe place to live in? to take revenge for all the poor suppressed iraquis? to fight a holy war and to shine brightfully in the eye of the ONE GOD? come on.

i never mentioned the reasons for the war. that wasn't the issue i thought we were debating. of course altruism and desire for freedom are instantly ruled out as the possible motives: you wouldn't think i actually believe in such a rosy situation, would you?

i guess it's money, along with some problems the veteran bush admins still have with gulf war 1. don rumsfeld and dick cheney fought this war before, for george bush.

indeed, it is about money. all sides are fighting over money. i'm not part of any administration. if i was, i would be fighting over money, plus the chance to save my ass.
the fact that money are the prime motive doesn't really strike me as a reason to be against and it doesn't strike me as a reason to be in favour. if i were able to decide of the future of mankind, i'd say we all live happy, except for the tree-huggers.
but i can't, and the way i see things the technical reasons (pro or against) are the ones i can - with my limited knowledge - discuss. not the great moral values behind. i'm all for great moral values. i just can't have the rest of the fucking world population back me up. silly, isn't it?

and besides, i don't expect people to be motherfuckers when lives are at stake.

it's easy not to be when lives aren't. i don't expect any country to be ruled by non-motherfuckers, and i would cringe at the thought of one who is not, because the non-motherfucker way works fine when everybody isn't, but it really is not worth shit when everyone but you is. it can lead to your demise, and not yours alone.
believe me, i deprecate the idea of innocent people dying. but i also think the world is not in a situation where a lot of innocent people wouldn't anyway, so the discussion falls back down on politics and what is the most effective thing to do and the most efficient way to do it, based on what you want to achieve. these are the grounds where i think i might debate a war/peace dichotomy and where i concede that, by all means, all opinions against the war are worthy of the highest praise and consideration.

rahvin.

 

[Malaclypse]

Why did they start caring all of a sudden about Iraqi lives now that the USA is involved? Lives have been at stake for decades, and people looked away.

you are quite right. but since the usa are involved, it's in the media and affects a large amount of people. maybe i didn't state that i do believe that sooner or later the iraq has to be freed of this dictatorship, but not in a one-nation-action whose president thinks he can do whatever he wants regardless of UN decisions.
i am no tree hugger myself, and honestly i agree i can't care for every life wasted in the numerous wars still going on. but since the usa is a "first-world"-nation and ought to be civilized, i supposed their actions to be a bit more thought-over than they seem to be.
it cannot be that the UN look baffled and paralyzed at what is going on. what is it good for then, anyway?

@rahv:
sure it's easier and most probably more reasonable to be a motherfucker when everyone else is, but i want to be against the trend

 

[Malaclypse]

one more thing you all should have a look at:

http://www.newamericancentury.org

simply click on "statement of principles" and let your jaw drop. hint: look at the names who signed the paper.
taken from the introduction to stir some shit up:

"The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership."

 

[Salamurhaaja]

maybe i didn't state that i do believe that sooner or later the iraq has to be freed of this dictatorship, but not in a one-nation-action whose president thinks he can do whatever he wants regardless of UN decisions.

Exactly, I don't really care what they do over there, but don't go doing anything against UN's wishes, since if they are allowed to do this ILLEGAL declaration of war, then who is to stop them when they attack other countries under the same excuse?

It's gonna be fun when they attack Finland, since they are of course a terrorist nation, and take over the cell phone business, because that money is definetly funding the finnish resistance fighters in Russia... and USA has proof, of course they don't have to show it to anyone, since they are US of fucking A... or something like that.

 

[Humanure]

At this point in the world's history the UN is virtually meaningless. Why? Because the US is too powerful. An institution like the UN only works properly when all players are on equal footing. The United States has the military power to invade any nation on earth and defeat it in a matter of days or, in most cases, hours. We can and will go at it alone in Iraq. Everyone knows this, and this knowledge allows Nations like France, Russia and Germany to 'have their cake and eat it to.' They will be able to appear to be moderate, but will benefit from having him removed from power. Additionally if he isn't removed from power, they will benefit from their own oil contracts with Iraq. When other nations build up their military strength to our level (and they will), then the UN can begin to have some meaning. This veto power is another concept I loathe. If a bill is before congress and a senator from one of the 13 original colonies doesn't like it he can't kill the bill himself. Majority opinion should rule (among equals).

On to this situation. I'm tired of the bullshit. What resolution are we on now? Fuck everyone. Everyone wants to see Saddam gone. 12 years is long enough to disarm. Iraq should be democratized (as should other authoritarian arab countries, but we'll get to them later). Will there be innocent lives lost? Of course. Will there be innocent lives lost if Saddam stays in power? Absolutely.

The more I learn about and ponder this situation, the more I agree with the people in charge of this country. Bush may not be the brightest, or smoothest President we've had, but he was smart to surround himself with the right people. We would be a wreck now if Gore had won (this coming from a person who voted for him).

Ahh, I've spent enough time here and have forgotten if any of this is even relevant to the last few posts . Still, after typing this much I'm not about to delete this thing .

-Humanure (whose views on this situation have changed dramatically recently)

 

[|ngenius]

We can and will go at it alone in Iraq.

You're wrong. The american pacifier (aka, Mr. Bush) counts on two nice, charismatic and powerful leaders to attack Iraq with: Mr. Tony "Manero" Blair (from UK) and José María "Wild Head" Aznar (from the Democratic Republic of Spain, where everyone is against war, but the president owns the country). It sounds amazing. Come on, Aznar, kill'em all!

Iraq should be democratized (as should other authoritarian arab countries, but we'll get to them later).

Yeah, they should. But I hope they won't follow a process based on the same layout other "democratized" countries used to do. Any other request? Or shall we leave it for another day?

On to this situation. I'm tired of the bullshit. What resolution are we on now? Fuck everyone.

Great resolution. Forgive my irony, fellow, but I don't think that "fuck everyone" will go a long way towards helping. UN is a shit, Saddam is either too stupid or too clever, and possibly this world is just a big amount of shit, I do agree. But neither this complaint, nor a "War to End All Wars" (TM) will lead us to a good point, either.

The more I learn about and ponder this situation, the more I agree with the people in charge of this country.

Poor of you, then. You were right, UN is worthless because of the extreme power and influence the states have acquired over the years. Is that war the only way to see some justice shining bright at the end of this tunnel? I don't think so.

I am not so bright, so I won't talk so smartly about the people who rule your country, but let me ask something. If the USA are that powerful, if they can invade any nation even overcoming the UN restrictions and several vetos... why can't USA hold another day without attack Iraq? Why don't you use the pressure you have to exercise a political influence over Iraq in order to keep the world safe? Because Saddam is not the main cause, because WE, people, are not the main reason to defend, but because there are several other reasons in a "higher level" involved Mr. Bush should defend. I know it, you know it. And something that is pretty obvious will be ignored anyway. That's the power of the applied democracy, a definition that has changed dramatically recently.

Yes, the world is a big, beautiful and chupi shit. Shall we add even more?

|ngenius (Mr. Bush: Gimme a call if you find yourself saving us from an alien attack once more).

 

[wildfyr]

hypocrites and liars
dontcha just hate 'em?

 

[rahvin]

all interaction between countries is, at present, still based on power (economical and military). organizations like the un only work as long as all parties agree to live by their rules. this is not like citizens of a nation, that have to follow the law or receive some punishment from a state administration that is always considerably stronger than them. if a nation doesn't want to behave according to the rules of international law, that nation is free to do it if it can live with the consequences.
i don't know whether this justifies any action under the light of anyone's moral standards, but moral standards shouldn't be confused with the actual situation, since there is a big difference between reacting to how the world is, and reacting to how the world is supposed to be.

rahvin.

 

[Humanure]

MOTHERFUCKER!! That's twice now that IE has shut down in the middle of my reply!!

You're wrong. The american pacifier (aka, Mr. Bush) counts on two nice, charismatic and powerful leaders to attack Iraq with: Mr. Tony "Manero" Blair (from UK) and José María "Wild Head" Aznar (from the Democratic Republic of Spain, where everyone is against war, but the president owns the country). It sounds amazing. Come on, Aznar, kill'em all! !!!

Yes, but how many Star Destroyers are the UK and Spain Contributing to the cause ?

Yeah, they should. But I hope they won't follow a process based on the same layout other "democratized" countries used to do. Any other request? Or shall we leave it for another day?

Hey, anything's better than the archaic state gov't they have now. While I'm at it, can I add a complete separation of church and state to my list of requests too? Didn't think so....

Great resolution. Forgive my irony, fellow, but I don't think that "fuck everyone" will go a long way towards helping. UN is a shit, Saddam is either too stupid or too clever, and possibly this world is just a big amount of shit, I do agree. But neither this complaint, nor a "War to End All Wars" (TM) will lead us to a good point, either.

Oops, that came out wrong...I meant what UN resolution number are we on. 17, I think. 12 years into this fiasco, i think it's time we take some action.

Poor of you, then. You were right, UN is worthless because of the extreme power and influence the states have acquired over the years. Is that war the only way to see some justice shining bright at the end of this tunnel? I don't think so.

Clearly diplomacy as the UN seeks to administer it is not working. Something should have been done when Saddam ousted the UN inspectors originally. Was anything done? No, because the UN is full of spineless pussies. Actually, I guess I should say Clinton was a spineless pussy, as no one but the US would actually take initiative. Sanctions? Please, how many Billion dollar palaces did Saddam build last year? The sanctions are only hurting the people of Iraq. Better to go in now, oust Saddam and rebuild the country than jerk off for another 12 years, no?

Political influence doesn't work with rulers of archaic states. They rule by oppression and brute military force that squashes any opposition in their borders. The only way to truly oust such rulers is through either military force (by either the people of the country or an outside force) or waiting for the regime to crumble in on itself, which isn't likely to happen anytime soon in this case, or any case in these modern times...

-Humanure (apologies in advance for any spelling errors...it's been a long night )

 

[Salamurhaaja]

MOTHERFUCKER!! That's twice now that IE has shut down in the middle of my reply!!

Hmm, I am starting to think we have this all wrong... We need to concentrate on the REAL enemy of humankind... Microsoft... Instead of Iraq, bomb the shit out of them...

Btw, 2 words Mozilla and Linux


@|ng
I love you, you big, beautiful, shiny robot

 

[rahvin]

Hmm, I am starting to think we have this all wrong... We need to concentrate on the REAL enemy of humankind...

@|ng
I love you, you big, beautiful, shiny robot

also, human-robot intercourse is a real threat to society.

rahvin.

 

[|ngenius]

The more I think on it, the more ironic and absurd it seems to me. Let's see, I am not worshipping Husseincito (do you think that a man with a face like that is worthy of be worshipped?!). Of course, if TV brings you images from that poor and savage country, we can imagine what that brutal reality may bring to a direct exposure. I guess we do agree at this point.

I am just a fool, so I won't start arguing about international politics, but... from my utter ignorance, if the states are claiming for that peaceful disarming, why did they sell them the stuff they're trying to disarm right now? Did you think that Iraq had built up the missiles with some chopped wood and a couple of hammers? It is absurd. I sell you a missile, and then I try to recover it because I feel uneasy and that way will let me own more oil emplacements. And it is a beautiful opportunity to show my new missile launchers. A war revitalizes the economy, the oil barrel's price has decreased in a 2 per cent. Great! It has cost just a bunch of lifes.

Personally, I don't care about the reasons USA has to attack Iraq or any other of those "no matter which" nations. There are a lot of countries involved in endless civil wars, continuous riots, governments leading them with steel gloves, and so on. This conflict has more relevance because the states are involved, that's all. And, I admit it, being too self-centered, I don't care about that, because I live in a safe "democratized" country, and I can forget the rest of the world. But when the spanish president decides to skip the public demands and take my country to a stupid war because of certain clouded (but not clouded at all at the time) reasons, and when someone decides randomly that a concrete country means a menace when that someone helped to create the "monster", and when millions of (already) poor and hungry people will die in vain and Saddam will live anyway, and when the extreme power of a nation seems not to be enough to use the fear as a measure of proof to increase the pressure against the tyranny instead of a "kill'em all" idiosyncrasy, and it all is done with the straightforward rejection from the citizens of the world... that's more than annoying. That's vexing.

But that is, once more, obvious to everyone. The fact is that no one of us wanna listen the others. We are self-centered, and we live on looking for our interests. The hardest fact in any negotiation, in any relationship, is to listen the other parts and, even more, struggle to comprehend them. And the fact is that I care about those poor countries, and I can't be that self-centered.

At this point, there's just a question left to say. You, Mr. Bush, will protect me fighting against Sadam, against Afghanistan, and even against the alien invaders. Thank you for it all. But who will protect me from you?

@Rahvin: Yeah, but the fact is that a particular moral stands over the standard one, or even over a popular moral.

@Salamy: If your love doesn't imply sex, I love you as well.

@Humanure: Spanish warriors are strictly trained to be at the same level the american "star destroyers" soldiers are. UK are just a bunch of frightened fools, hehe.


|ng (Absurd robot)

 

[rahvin]

@Rahvin: Yeah, but the fact is that a particular moral stands over the standard one, or even over a popular moral.

if you mean that a specific set of values is being imposed by the usa, i agree. but you (and i mean you, me, everyone) live on that set of values. they are the standard that brought you your job, your music, your internet connection, your rights to come here and say that [insert name] is a motherfucker without being lynched in the streets. i'm not saying we should be grateful: as new model army would put it, our rights come from the blood and tears of our grandfathers and grandmothers. i'm just saying that i'm more afraid of having to protect myself from mr. hussein and his no job, no metal music, no internet connection, no chance to say i disagree with him politics, than of having to protect myself from the united states. they sure have provided hussein with weapons in the past. he was connected to cia, to my knowledge. is this good and happy? no. does that mean i think the usa are benefactors? no.
now, does that mean i think there's any other way beside a military operation to get rid of hussein now? no.

rahvin.

 

[|ngenius]

I understand. It's based on the statement: "To choose the better of the worst". Well, I haven't said that war was perfectly avoidable, don't get my words wrong. Perhaps (and just perhaps!) a war might be the only way to make the things work out. I said that a popular rejection, a wide range of countries expressing a dangerous veto (for themselves, considering it will decrease the international relationship with USA), and several irregularities concerning the reasons to start an immediate attack are cards that must be shown.

About my internet connection, if by giving it away I can save people's lives, I will. I think there are many ways to improve, and often there are wrong ones that are chosen because they're faster than the others. Faster but bloody ways are not the best solution.

|ng.

 

[Humanure]

My knowledge of international politics probably isn't much more diverse than yours, so I won't pretend to know the actual answer to the question, but at the time we were selling Iraq arms we were still very much at odds with the USSR. Same goes for our arming of Afghanistan and, apparently, support for UBL in the 80's. I guess it's that 'the enemy of your enemy is your friend'-type thinking. Wise, it may not be, but we won the cold war in the end, so maybe 'the end justifies the means.'

Err, I had some other thought to add to this, but it's long gone now...

@Salamy: I would definately be for a war with this Evil Empire