Ruminations in Korea

Comment by YeOldeToaste

31 May 2004 @ 9:41 pm

Completely worthless.

When exactly did we ‘lose’ him? When he was giving his radio and television addresses openly since 1991?

Powell et al. didn’t stand before the UN and the world and say “We’re starting this war to get rid of Saddam”

Jeff, this is just depressing.

-Adam

Comment by Jeff in Korea

31 May 2004 @ 10:19 pm

The justification for the war was the United Nations-accepted Resolution 1441. WMD’s were NEVER the main reason for getting rid of Saddam, only an ancillary consideration.

Comment by Christopher

1 June 2004 @ 12:04 am

No that is a pretty striking statement from a foreign dignitary.

Comment by Brian

1 June 2004 @ 12:38 am

“The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason….”

Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz

And in BUsh’s address to the union when we went to war he didn’t mention the United Nations once.

Spin away, Jeff.

Comment by diakorea

1 June 2004 @ 1:29 am

Most of you are missing the real problem in IRAQ. This is what Iraq wants and needs

1) focus on diversiy training. If there was special days that focused on the different cultures, and their unique beauity, in Iraq then people would not be so angry at each other and there would be more understanding.
take canada for example, they live in harmony because of diversiy days.
http://www.pch.gc.ca/special/canada/index_e.cfm

2) After school activities. If all those kids could be playing b-ball they chould channel their energy into a positive direction.

3)Job retraining, i know the usa is working on this right now by training police but Iraq is going to need CEOs and Doctors lawyers and professionals if they want to compete in the age of globlization.

4) day care and programs like “head start”. lets face it folks. study after study has proven that these programs work.

5) accounablity! what i mean here is simple. there needs to be more accountabily in iraq. take substandard housing. there needs to be rules in place so that people arnt building substandard housing.

6) “reuse recycle and reduce” It dont take a rocket scientist to figure out that iraq is a messy mess. Lets remind people to “reuse recycle and reduce”

7) close the “digital divide”. again folks look at a country like Qorea with the number 11 economy in the world and one of the highest rate of internet user in the world. this is not a coincidence.

8) Start a war on poverty. A lot of people are against war so this one may take some explaining, because its a play on words. Its not the usual war. Its a “war” yes, but in this war you are fighting the poor people. Of course you cant make everyone rich this way. But its silly to think that there is a cure for eveything.

8) another things that is obvous but will take some time are: free health care. again look at canada for leadership on this one.

9) Diversify the economy. iraq is too dependent on oil revinue. A high technology area like “Teheran Valley” the name many americans beginning to call Silicon Valley, as a hat tip to Qoreas “Teheran-no Street” in Gangnam. Also a healty auto indursty would be useful.

Those are my ideas. I will probally get “fisked” for trying to help.

Comment by Gerry Bevers

1 June 2004 @ 3:49 am

“The real weapon of mass destruction in Iraq was Saddam Hussein — and he was found.”

I love that quote.

The democratization of Iraq would be like a stake in the heart of Middle Eastern terrrorism. It would also be a symbol of hope for like-minded people in other countries in the region.

When I hear people say, “But no WMDs were found,” I am reminded of the silly, petty arguments made by Major Frank Burns from the TV sitcom, “M.A.S.H.”

Comment by Scott-in-Japan

1 June 2004 @ 5:22 am

The Italians are standing up tall, very nice. He could have mentioned the sarin that’s been found - but he told ‘em to get bent instead. That’s the kind of diplomacy we need to see more of.

Comment by Joel

1 June 2004 @ 12:07 pm

I don’t know that quoting a man who was quoted last year calling Germans “stereotyped blondes with a hyper-nationalist pride” or for comparing a European Union lawmaker from Germany to a Nazi prison camp guard adds a lot of credibility to your cause. I would try to stick to those who use only logical arguments based on fact rather than someone who obviously lets his emotions impair his judgment.

“The justification for the war was the United Nations-accepted Resolution 1441.”

I could be wrong. It has been over a year since I’ve read the thing, but I don’t recall resolution 1441 having provisions for use of military force. I think citing a UN resolution, as the reason for the attack, is not fitting when you consider that the US abandoned a push for an additional resolution, which would have had provisions dictating the use of force, in the face of international opposition and the threat of vetoes. Vetoes for only certain nations in an international arena are another thing I disagree with, but that’s a whole separate issue. If we were going to invade every country that was violation of international law or treaties we could have started with our ally in the War on Terror, Pakistan, or any number of other nations (Sudan, Libya, Iran, Syria, Jordan, DPRK, China, etc.). The truth of the matter was that the invasion of Iraq (much like the alliance with Pakistan) was a US foreign policy decision and an action that the current administration deemed to be the most beneficial course of action to our nation at that time. That’s what foreign policy for every nation is. The only justification that needs to be given is that it was what was deemed the most beneficial course of action for America at that time. The debate comes in on whether that justification is true or not.

“The democratization of Iraq would be like a stake in the heart of Middle Eastern terrrorism.”

Or it could just make them a huge target, surrounded by enemies (like Israel). Of course that would lessen the threat of an attack on US soil because who wants to fly all the way around the world when they can attack democracy (if it lasts) in their own backyard.

“…silly, petty arguments made by Major Frank Burns from the TV sitcom, ‘M.A.S.H.’”

Citing a TV series designed to subtly criticize war and senseless destruction in order to support war. Classic.

“…but he told ‘em to get bent instead.”

Exactly. What we need is more politicians disregarding the opinions of their constituents. That is REAL democracy. (I hope someone is picking up on the sarcasm there) Perhaps you are not aware of the connotations of the word which you use, but “get bent” is a slang term similar in meaning to “f*** you” deriving its origins from sodomy. Telling those people who you are supposed to be representing to “f*** off” is not what we need more of in politics. It happens too much as it is.

Comment by Brian

1 June 2004 @ 12:12 pm

Don’t waste your time, Joel. There is absolutley no evidence or turn-of-events that could make the supporters of Bush’s Iraq policy change their mind. It’s like a religion to them.

Comment by Scott-in-Japan

1 June 2004 @ 1:08 pm

Resolution 1441: The US never ended the first war, they just negotiated a type of cease-fire. Which Saddam violated. Check the resolutions back a little further (678, 687) and you’ll find that use-of-force was outlined.

“The truth of the matter was that the invasion of Iraq… was a US foreign policy decision … deemed to be the most beneficial course of action to our nation at that time”: Yes, it is. Which is what a good administration does - make good decisions for it’s country. With the invasion of Iraq we got to witness the cooperation of Libya - quickly after Saddam was found. The bad guys who were focusing on the USA are spending time & effort working on Saudi Arabia. An efficient move from invading only 1 country. Invading some other country wouldn’t get results that fast.

“Or it could just make them a huge target, surrounded by enemies (like Israel)”: The bad guys in the area need to killed - because they are doing everything they can to kill the good people in the region. And working hard to destroy America. The bad guys need to be stopped, period.

“Get bent”: And the Italian expressed the thought quite well. I firmly believe he expresses the sentiments of a majority of those he represents.

Comment by Gerry Bevers

1 June 2004 @ 1:46 pm

Joel,

The democratization of South Korea was a stake in the heart of communism. The stark difference between life in South Korea and life in North Korea was so glaringly obvious that even China and the Soviet Union were unable to ignore it.

Without the Korean War, there would be no South Korea and maybe not even the Japan we know today. Instead of enslaving over 20 million Koreans, Kim Jong-il would be enslaving 70 million.

M.A.S.H.’s Major Burns supported the Korean war, and he was right to do so, but my reference to him was meant to show how his focus on petty details, while ignoring the bigger picture, was similar to the focus of those who oppose the war in Iraq.

Comment by ari(w)rong

1 June 2004 @ 3:32 pm

The far right really is living in a fantasy world on Iraq. Of course, democracy in Iraq would be a great thing. No one is going to argue with that just like no argues IN PRINCIPLE with the hippie idea of wishing for world peace. The real issue is how practical and realistic it is.

As for democracy in Iraq, over a $100 billion in U.S. taxpayer money and the lives of over 800 of our service men later … the answer appears to be not very practical or realistic. I hope we can turn this thing around but there is no doubting that the Bush administration was delusional prior to starting the war and we are now paying the price for their corresponding lack of proper preparation and planning. They really believed that Iraqis would be lining the streets with flowers welcoming our troops and planned accordingly. Wolfowitz compared Iraq to France 1944 in an interview with the Philadelphia Enquirer (I’d like to get some of what he was smoking).

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/columnists/trudy_rubin/4535946.htm?1c

Anyone that thinks only left wingers and hippies that think Iraq is a mess is delusional.

I leave you with the thoughts of retired 4-star General Anthony Zinni from 60 minutes:

Zinni was commander-in-chief of the United States Central Command, in charge of all American troops in the Middle East. That was the same job held by Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf and Tommy Franks before him. He voted for Bush in 2000 and following his retirement from the Marine Corps, the Bush administration thought so highly of Zinni that it appointed him to one of its highest diplomatic posts — special envoy to the Middle East.

“Now, at the same time, we had this war on terrorism. We were fighting al Qaeda. We were engaged in Afghanistan. We were looking at ‘cells’ in 60 countries. We were looking at threats that we were receiving information on and intelligence on. And I think most of the generals felt, let’s deal with this one at a time. Let’s deal with this threat from terrorism, from al Qaeda.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/60minutes/main618896.shtml

Comment by scott

1 June 2004 @ 4:08 pm

ari(w)rong gets it right. We needed to open up a new front on the War on Terror just about as much as Hitler needed a new front to his east. Now throw in the very real and immediate threat of North Korea and tell me that we haven’t over-extended ourselves.

Comment by Sugar Shin

1 June 2004 @ 5:24 pm

I don’t know that quoting a man who was quoted last year calling Germans “stereotyped blondes with a hyper-nationalist pride”… -Joel

Joel,

I agree with your coment above, but the quote is from Italy’s ex-undersecretary of the ministerium for industry and tourism Stefano Stefani. He’s a member of the anti-foreigners, separatist “Lega Nord” (leader: Umberto Bossi) of Italy’s wealthy northern Lombardian Region, who view the poorer Mezzo Giorno, southern Italy, Sardinia and Sicily as a taxpayers’ money sucking part of “North Africa”. With the former fascistic party of “Allianza Nationale” (leader: Franco Fini) and Berlusconis political party business “Forza Italia” (leader: Il media Duce himself!) they’re currently forming the coalition government of the constantly threatened, weak democracy in Italy. Berlusconi is a despised laughingstock in the European Union and the majority of the Italian population was clearly against the US invasion plans for Iraq, although Berlusconi’s Mediasat/ Fininvest “media chaebol” and his firm grip on all state-owned TV channels RAI gave him the right medial fire-power to propagate the message for a “needed” war in Iraq.

Silvio Berlusconi has so much power concentrated with his media monopoly and political power as the richest man of Italy (personal fortune and property worth of apporximately € 15 billion), that he tries to break the backbone of Italy’s justice and prosecution branch to avoid all pending criminal charges of corruption, tax evasions, money-laundering against him and his dubious connections to mafia groups of the Sicilian “Cosa Nostra”, Neapolitan “Camorra” & the Calabrian “Ndragheta”, which led him to his first easily-earned fortunes in the real-estate and construction business in Milano. With these accumulated net-profits Berlusconi was able to invest in the new private cable channels TV business in the beginning 1980s. For this risky business stunt he used his membership of the secret lodge “P2″ (formed in the 1970s, members from the business elite, Vatican bankers, military brass, Carbinieri para-military police force, intelligence staff of all branches, political elite with the aim to destroy Italy’s left and re-construct the nation as an authoritarian state a la Argentinia, Chile or then junta-ruled Greece) where one of the lodge-brothers, socialist Prime Minister Bettino Craxi (who fled later to Tunisia and died there in exile) helped him to receive the private TV channel licenses without naming the roots of the shadowy secret money lenders and investors behind Berlsuconi’s miraculous rise to Italy’s top business stratosphere. He became the media czar of today.

I’ve recently read an IHT-article about European dismay about Bush’s foreign policy in the Middle East, where an Italian professor was quoted in a street interview: “Silvio Berlusconi is not America’s best friend, he’s George W. Bush’s best friend!”. O professore, you’re so damn’ correct!

Comment by Scott-in-Japan

1 June 2004 @ 7:14 pm

ari(w)rong-

Democracy in Iraq is a nice ideal, but almost anything is preferable to the terrorist-sponsoring state that Saddam ran. Saddam had an intentional, working relationship with al-Queda, period:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

As for the opinion of Zinni, feel free to ignore it. “Saddam was effectively contained. The no-fly, no-drive zones. The sanctions that were imposed on him”. All of which ignores Saddam’s:
- flights to the north when he gassed the Kurds,
- ability to drive a few dozen tractor-trailers to Syria just before the invasion,
- and the millions of dollars he gathered by making illegal deals for his oil with (you saw this coming) the countries who opposed the war (read: Germany, France, Russia).

Yes, it would be nice if the US had more troops to put on the ground. But that would have required Clinton not reducing the US troop count by 40%. Bush took office with a reduced military size, and Saddam actively working with the bad guys. The choice was between approaching-chaos and the-best-we-can-manage-under-the-circumstances.

There isn’t always a choice between Very Good and Very Bad options. Sometimes the choice is between Very Bad and Something Better. Saddam presented the world with a choice between his horrible scenario - and the something-better option the US is now pursuing (with help from some friends). Saddam didn’t present the world with a fair choice, but life isn’t fair.

Comment by Sugar Shin

1 June 2004 @ 8:53 pm

“- flights to the north when he gassed the Kurds,
- ability to drive a few dozen tractor-trailers to Syria just before the invasion,
- and the millions of dollars he gathered by making illegal deals for his oil with (you saw this coming) the countries who opposed the war (read: Germany, France, Russia).” Scott-in-Japan

Saddam gassed the Kurds in th 1980s during the Persian Gulf War with Iran, the no-fly-zones had been set up after the Gulf War/ Operation Desert Storm. Rumsfeld then in the 80s as an special US envoy visited Saddam personally to assure him US weapon & intelligence assistance in Hussein’s war path against Kohmeini’s Iran.

Not confirmed IMO, but if true, Assad in Syria might be a great anti-Semite, but he’s not as mad as Saddam was, so the tractor-trailers are in more “serious” Syrian hands now and under surveillance by US spy satellites.

You forgot to mention the millions of dollars, that foreign daughter companies of the Halliburton conglomerate made with traded Iraqi oil under the CEO Dick Cheney in violation of US oil embargo jurisdiction.

Ah, I’m getting tired…

Comment by woojay

1 June 2004 @ 10:09 pm

“The justification for the war was the United Nations-accepted Resolution 1441. WMD’s were NEVER the main reason for getting rid of Saddam, only an ancillary consideration.”

Funny why one should mention UN Resolutions when in fact it was the _UN_, which is the sole authority over judging compliance and enforcement of its _own_ resolutions, never approved the use of force. If your argument is based on the presumption that the U.S. has equal footing as the UN to interpret and enforce UN Resolutions, that’s what I would call pure arrogance. And as Joel mentioned, there are plenty of other cases of UN resolutions being violated by other countries, only to be met with double standards by the U.S. because of their allied status (http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2002/0210unres.html).

I also find it puzzling where you get the notion that “WMD’s were NEVER the main reason for getting rid of Saddam,” when the argument made by the Bush administration at the UN _all the time_ was WMD’s. The U.S. hardly, if not NEVER, mentioned human rights violations or the implanting of democracy in the Middle East at the UN (have you ever wondered why?). Of course, Bush yapped away about these issues in public, but since you seem to hold the UN in such high regard, I guess what he said at the UN should really count, not what he said to the American people.

As for “building democracy,” perhaps one should take a look first at the history of American “nation building” attempts before one naively (and/or arrogantly) jumps to the conclusion that you can simply rip apart a country and build a stable democracy using military force without putting on the throne a U.S.-friendly regime that eventually mutates to another murderous dictatorship?(http://www.ceip.org/files/pdf/Policybrief24.pdf).Also makes you wonder why, in the past, the U.S. government actually gave economic and military support to Saddam himself and Suharto of Indonesia who killed more than a million people, and condoned the genocide of 1.7 million Cambodians and half a million Tutsis. Freedom in South Korea was won not only by the Korean War, but also by decades of struggle by the people who toppled the bloody military dictatorships to restore rule by the people. If freedom in Iraq were the true motives of the U.S., perhaps it could have also considered the possibility of the Iraqi people finding their own way of liberating themselves, and helping them out by, say, not issuing those export licenses to U.S. companies trying to sell chemical and biological agents to Saddam?

Oh, and Mr. Scott-in-Japan, “I firmly believe he expresses the sentiments of a majority of those he represents.” Perhaps you should do some fact-checking before making such a claim? (http://www.eriposte.com/war_peace/iraq/iraq_war_worldwide_support.htm — 73% of Italians opposed the war) Then again, I’ve found most right-winger war supporters to be either incapable of or averse toward fact-checking and sober analysis so I guess I shouldn’t expect too much of that here.

But as Brian mentioned, I probably am just wasting my time.

Comment by woojay

1 June 2004 @ 10:27 pm

Oh, another thing, Mr. Scott-In-Japan. Unfortunately, that out-dated, obscure article you cited:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp

has been proved to be baseless by a statement from the Pentagon:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=2030480

If there are any other sources that support a link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda (amidst the myriad of articles that propound otherwise), I would love to know.

Comment by Joel

2 June 2004 @ 12:18 am

I don’t want to get too lengthy on this, but I would like to respond to those who were kind enough to respond to me.

Brian – Blogging might arguably be a waste of time, but I still do that. I usually try and stay out of stuff like this, but I had the urge to engage in discussion this morning after reading some of what had been written.

Scott in Japan –

“Check the resolutions back a little further (678, 687) and you’ll find that use-of-force was outlined.”

You can be rest assured I will check those resolutions, but for the time being what I said stands as correct. There were no provisions for use of military force in resolution 1441. So claiming resolution 1441 as the reason for going to war is not a valid argument. Perhaps the two afore mentioned should have been cited, but I won’t know until I check that out.

“The US never ended the first war”

We should have. Most of the world and our own country would have been behind the decision then because it was clearly justified as Saddam Hussein had acted as an international aggressor. I would have been behind it then. I am not a pacifist, but waiting 10 years and then deciding to do it on a whim with no recent cause seems a little contrived. I have heard my own representative (from the same general vicinity Jeff came from) spout about how we need to send a clear message to terrorists. We are sending them a clear and consistent message. If you work for us we will turn a blind eye to your atrocities and if you work against us then there will be hell to pay. That is not real consistency in my opinion.

“Yes, it is. Which is what a good administration does - make good decisions for its country.”

A good administration does act with the best interests of its county in mind. Like I said before, whether this turns out to be a good move or a monumental waste of resources and life is undeterminable, at least in the near future. Any conjectures otherwise (positive or negative) are speculation.

“With the invasion of Iraq… from invading only 1 country. Invading some other country…”

I thought we were there to liberate the Iraqi people and spread democracy. I just wanted to point out you used the word invade three times, which is defined by Webster as:
1 : to enter for conquest or plunder
2 : to encroach upon

What would Freud say about this slip and where is Sally to comment on it when you need her?

“I firmly believe he expresses the sentiments of a majority of those he represents…”

I don’t need to really address that since Woojay has already seen to it. But the point of the matter is he didn’t represent a majority of his constituents and you firmly believed it. What is your criterion for forming beliefs?

“…flights to the north when he gassed the Kurds”

I don’t believe in the use of chemical weapons for any reason, but death is death. The truth of the matter was the Kurds rose up in rebellion against Saddam during the war with Iran (a war in which we somehow managed to play all three sides against each other.) Maybe you have forgotten, but the penalty for treason during time of war (and I mean REAL treason and REAL war) in the United States is punishable by death. Saddam enacted corporal punishment against traitors (or enemy combatants if you will) much as would have been carried out in the United States if citizens joined up to aid a foreign power in time of war. If you argue that he gassed many innocent people in the process let’s talk about all the bombing of soft targets in North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Iraq this time around (EG: the dropping of 4 2000lb bombs on a neighborhood based on time sensitive intelligence that Saddam and his sons were there. As we all know now, they weren’t, but 30 other ‘innocent’ people were there and only half of them walked away alive.) Saddam acted during a time of war. The US acted during time of war too. So if you want to call that a war crime then you better be willing to put every living president on trial for atrocities committed in the best interest of our nation

Gerry Bevers -

“The democratization of South Korea was a stake in the heart of communism.”

The democratization of South Korea was a stake in the heart of communism. However, we didn’t really care about the democratization of ROK as much as we cared about maintaining a foothold against our cold war nemeses. If we cared about democracy so much we would have gone through much of the same steps that are being taken now in Iraq in the formation of a constitution and a representative governing force and not sat idly by watching military coup after military coup derail a legitimate political process.

“The stark difference between life in South Korea and life in North Korea was so glaringly obvious that even China and the Soviet Union were unable to ignore it.”

The stark difference did not manifest itself most recently and then everyone was unable to ignore it. It might be fair to point out that North Korea maintained economic equality (and some might even argue superiority over) with ROK for decades with much less help than South Korea was receiving. Only after droughts, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and several other factors did North Korea become reduced to what it is today. Had it been the US that collapsed instead of Russia you can be rest assured South Korea would look very similar to what DPRK looks like today.

“M.A.S.H.’s Major Burns supported the Korean War, and he was right to do so…”

I agree he was right to support the Korean War. Why was he right some might ask? The North aggressed against an unwilling South in an attempt at reunification. Invading a foreign nation is always valid justification for international intervention, which like I said before is why we should have taken care of Saddam during the first conflict and not years later with no clear reason. Under the same umbrella though we should have acted to stop China from invading Tibet. We should have stood up when Japan started invading Korea, Manchugoa, China, and many other island nations. We should have done something when Germany invaded Poland, Belgium, France, Russia, etc. The reason we didn’t get involved in those cases like I mentioned previously is the same reason we did get involved in the war in Iraq (Although many would argue now in hindsight of 50 plus years that we made poor decisions and should have gotten involved sooner. It’s easy to make the call when you’re unattached an in many cases not even alive at the time, eh?). It was deemed the best course of action at the time for our nation and not because of some moral ideal. I wish people would stop pretending this moral ideal exists. The sooner that is recognized the better. I hope that when China tries to force the issue with Taiwan we step up and make a stand (and we very well might, but if we do know it will be because if the Taiwanese economy leaves the global market all nations will take a hit and not because we really care about their freedom.) but a part of me tells me why should Taiwan be any different than Tibet?

Sugar – Sorry to misquote the Italian. He did make the analogy between the Nazi prison guard and the fellow diplomat in that formal meeting and for some reason I had just remembered him saying the stereotype thing because he issued the public apology for both sets of statements. Thanks for the correction.

I hope I don’t feel the urge to post on here again. I am taking huge amounts of Jeff’s space and wasting even larger portions of my evening talking about something that cannot be solved in this forum.

Trackback by About Joel... 조엘에 대하여...

2 June 2004 @ 1:53 am

너는 그냥 내가 하는 소리라고 생각했겠지만…

Here is a look at some of the seedling trays before they are put on the machine to be placed in rows in the fields. Here is a look at the trays from close up. If you want to…

Comment by Sugar Shin

2 June 2004 @ 2:14 am

Wow, am I in a déjà vu rhetorical battle à la “Marmot’s Hole” here???

Joel,
sorry for me inconsequent non-clarification of the correct second part of your sentence. Silvio Berlusconi did in fact compared the German EU parlament member with a KZ (”Konzentrationslager”, concentration camp) guard of minor status & rights called “Kapo” during a parliamentary answer session as the new president of the EU presidency (changes every 6 months to periodically to the next EU member state’s adiministration).

The ex-undersecretary Stefano Stefani did his anti-German comment (hyper-nationalistic German blondes, who invade our beaches in the summer…”) a few weeks ago in an press interview. Both Silvio and Stefano had to apologize to not-so-amused Gerd (Schröder, Federal Chancellor of Germany), who cancelled his usual weekslong Italy summer vacation.

Btw, for the laid back gossip break: Silvio had an incisive face-lifting during his spring holidays. Bella figura!

Comment by Sugar Shin

2 June 2004 @ 2:14 am

Wow, am I in a déjà vu rhetorical battle à la “Marmot’s Hole” here???

Joel,
sorry for my inconsequent non-clarification of the correct second part of your sentence. Silvio Berlusconi did in fact compared the German EU parlament member with a KZ (”Konzentrationslager”, concentration camp) guard of minor status & rights called “Kapo” during a parliamentary answer session as the new president of the EU presidency (changes every 6 months to periodically to the next EU member state’s adiministration).

The ex-undersecretary Stefano Stefani did his anti-German comment (hyper-nationalistic German blondes, who invade our beaches in the summer…”) a few weeks ago in an press interview. Both Silvio and Stefano had to apologize to not-so-amused Gerd (Schröder, Federal Chancellor of Germany), who cancelled his usual weekslong Italy summer vacation.

Btw, for the laid back gossip break: Silvio had an incisive face-lifting during his spring holidays. Bella figura!

Comment by Sugar "Spelling" Shin

2 June 2004 @ 3:18 am

The ex-undersecretary Stefano Stefani did his anti-German comment (hyper-nationalistic German blondes, who invade our beaches in the summer…”) a few weeks before Berlusconi’s disgraceful EU parliament comment in a press interview. Sugar Shin’s correction

Oops, please ignore the numerous spelling errors in my comments above.

I aplogize for my accidental double posts and the correction post, Jeff.

Comment by woojay

2 June 2004 @ 3:23 am

Hahaha, Sugar, as of recent I’ve been noticing a gradual shift in your tone of wit when talking politics. You almost sound, well heck, “soothing” in your comment above. I guess it’s not only because you’ve already had a good share of bouts with Republican neocon war-hawks from previous experiences that are probably not worth repeating, but also because your pen-name is becoming famous, which perhaps holds you back a bit from showing too much outspoken sarcasm? I gotta say I still prefer your fiery sharped-tongued comments back in the “good ole’ days” when you didn’t have much to lose, but I guess we must constantly adapt to changing conditions and at the end, it’s all for the best!

Comment by Scott-in-Japan

2 June 2004 @ 6:58 am

Joel -

“Gassing the Kurds” - Gassing the Kurds was wrong, period. As for them being ‘treasonous’ - good for them. Saddam was wrong and the Kurds were right. The left complains that the US may not be “right” in what it is doing (it is right), but the Kurds were right to fight Saddam.

General Norman S. lamented the crappy terms of the ‘cease fire’ because it allowed Saddam to keep some air vehicles - which he used to attack the Kurds again after cease fire.

“Invading” - We weren’t invited by Saddam, and it’s up to the US to set things right. Semantic whining from the left aside, the word fits. If the left wants to hand-wring over “Freudian” concerns, they should look in the mirror some more.

“Good decisions for the country” - The decision was based on the as-yet-unachieved goal of taking Saddam out. The less direct goals (cleaning up the bad guys in the Middle East) are also worthwhile. As you pointed out, the outcome hasn’t been determined yet - every decision is made this way.

“The war never ended” - Saddam violated the terms of the cease fire for those 10 years. Shame on the world for taking so long to take him out.

“He expressed the feelings of a majority of his constiuents” - I haven’t seen and polls about the Italians. But the polls I’ve seen for the US show that most Americans agree with the overall actions in Iraq. The lower levels of support come in the finer points and questions such as “was the US was ready?”. The overall support is there, albeit under-reported.

Comment by Sugar Shin

2 June 2004 @ 4:26 pm

Yeah, Woojay, I’ve also noticed, that I’m tending more to the “Sugar” instead of the “Shin” in me, but I can’t tell, if I’ve lost my peppery fervor. I don’t think, that I’m “famous” for anything, I receive only more spam mail in my mailbox from Korean sources, who wants to sell me shitty stuff. Sometimes I’m simply not in the mood to be on confrontation mode. But don’t be afraid, my friend, in case of need I’ll put away my little surgery scalpel and fetch my rusting battle axe, to drench it in Neo-Con’s blood, muahahahahaha!

Comment by Jeff in Korea

2 June 2004 @ 5:24 pm

my my my…aren’t we having a lively discussion…

Joel, for whatever reason, Saddam was not a target at the beginning of the first war. However, he apparently came to be a target at some time. The US and allied troops began rolling to Baghdad. We were annihilating the Iragi army. They were surrendering to camera men en masse. We were crushing the army so decisively that other countries were literally begging us to stop because our easy destruction of the iraqi troops was being viewed as a slaughter or massacre.

Had the US continued on and taken Saddam out, we would have been the evil guys for doing it. Now, we are being criticized for NOT doing it then and being criticized for doing it now. It’s a fickle world.

Joel said: “I have heard my own representative (from the same general vicinity Jeff came from) spout about how we need to send a clear message to terrorists. We are sending them a clear and consistent message. If you work for us we will turn a blind eye to your atrocities and if you work against us then there will be hell to pay. That is not real consistency in my opinion.”

My position: I think getting rid of Saddam was enough justification to go to war with his army. I have yet to see a single Iraqi say they are angry that Saddam was removed from power. despite the thousands of anti-war demonstrations, I never saw a single iraqi brought before a camera to say that the US shouldn’t go to war. If one had been available, I am sure he or she would have become the poster boy/girl for the anti-war movement. I think that it was right and good to get rid of Saddam.

My problem: Despite the above, I have said from the beginning that if only one lesson from this and other recent events is learned, then I hope that lesson will be, “The enemy of my enemy is NOT NECESSARILY my friend.” The US has too long believed that simply because someone hates the same person we do, that they are our friend. We have spent a good long time cleaning up messes that we essentially created. We supplied and supported Saddam against Iran. We supported and suppled Bin Laden against afghanistan. We set up Sigmund Rhee, who was not a nice guy. We educated Ho Chi Minh.

I hope that we will do what it is necessary to avoid these things in the future.

Comment by ari(w)rong

2 June 2004 @ 6:41 pm

Saddam presented the world with a choice between his horrible scenario - and the something-better option the US is now pursuing (with help from some friends).

That’s the questions isn’t it? Are we heading toward a “better option.” Leaving aside the question of how big a threat Saddam actually was … let’s look at developments so far:

1. Al Queda couldn’t have ordered up a better recruiting campaign than what’s happened in Iraq to date.

2. I’ve seen nothing to indicate that Iraq is headed toward a stable democracy. In fact civil war seems just as likely and with Iraq spiraling towards the type of chaos that breeds jihadists. Even assuming we get to the best case scenario and elections are held next January, what kind of government is the Iraqi public likely to elect. Given how much they seem to dislike us, how likely is a democratically elected government likely to be friendly towards us as opposed to being an Iranian style theocracy? and finally did the Bush administration give even 5 minutes worth of thought to these kinds of issues other than listening to Chalabi wax poetic about how much the Iraqis would love us.

The jury is still out but from a U.S. national security point of view … it sure does look like we may not be heading towards a “better option.”

The lower levels of support come in the finer points and questions such as “was the US was ready?”. The overall support is there, albeit under-reported.

There are two points here. 1. Was it right to take out Saddam? 2. Even if you answer “yes” to point 1, did the Bush administration completely botch the execution of the post -liberation phase of the operation, lowering our already dicey chances for success? The lower level of support comes from the fact that it’s becoming obvious to more and more Americans that the answer to point 2 is a resounding “YES.” The U.S. ain’t Korea where “jung” and kibun” triumph over competence so even if you think it was right to take out Saddam and attempt to set up a democracy in Iraq, I’d hardly call how well the job was actually executed a “finer point.”

Anyway, I think that reasonable people can disagree on point 1 but I don’t think there is not much room for argument on point 2.

Finally a minor point BUT …

“Saddam was effectively contained. The no-fly, no-drive zones. The sanctions that were imposed on him”. All of which ignores Saddam’s:
- flights to the north when he gassed the Kurds, …

Gas attacks made in 1988 prove that he wasn’t contained in 2002? I know it’s just a message board where everybody plays pretty fast and loose with facts but c’mon, this is pretty bad.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2855139.stm

Comment by Joel

4 June 2004 @ 4:29 am

Scott in Japan -

“Gassing the Kurds was wrong, period.” – I absolutely agree with you Scott. Gassing the Kurds was wrong. I will concede that. Killing people is wrong too. So is war. This is the world we live in and it’s not black and white.

“Saddam was wrong and the Kurds were right” – How were they right exactly? If Native Americans, Hawaiians, etc. rose up in bloody rebellion against the United States would you support that? According to the standard you are basing right and wrong they would be justified in doing this. What were your thoughts about Iran in all of this? Were they right too? They also happened to be fighting Iraq. But aren’t they also a member of the axis of evil? How can they be both evil and right at the same time? Or does having American support make your cause right? In that case wouldn’t all three sides of that war be right? Since we were secretly supplying and inciting all of them to fight and kill each other? If all three of them were right, then whom should we condemn? Like I said it’s not black and white.

“General Norman S. lamented the crappy terms of the ‘cease fire’” –
Victors set the terms for surrender in conflicts. If the terms were crappy you need seek no further than the administration and international organizations at that time.

“We weren’t invited by Saddam, and it’s up to the US to set things right.” – Is this the same right we were talking about earlier? Did it come from the same belief formation that you used to determine the Italian diplomat was using to represent the majority of his constituents? Did God hand down a divine mandate to the great US of A to impose moral correctness on the world? How can we attempt to do anything of the sort when Americans in general fail to agree as to what those values are? Allow me to quote a famous piece of American literature:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL MEN are created equal, that they are ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR TO ABOLISH IT, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

There are many ways to interpret that, but let’s pretend that they meant what they said, because if they didn’t then it shakes the very foundation of everything. ALL MEN are created equal, not US citizens, not WASPS, not Christians, ALL MEN. So holding foreigners to a different standard than Americans is hence not in accordance with those beliefs. Holding prisoners indefinitely without the right to trial by their peers does not correspond to the very basis of our country. Seeking to assassinate people or destroy them with bombs at the risk of ordinary citizens, instead of bringing them in for trial, does not correlate to that statement. Mistreating prisoners in an Iraqi prison sure as heck does not make it seem self-evident that everyone has been endowed with certain unalienable rights now would it? Are you willing to acknowledge we fail to live up to that ideal everyday? Can we pick and choose which ideals will suit us until the time we become ready to live by them all? How does it become valid to claim the rights of part of this statement in abolishing ‘wicked’ governments (and I am amusing you by allowing us to be included among the people with the right to abolish ANY government and not just those who suffer the loss of principles as a result of it) when we so blatantly hold so many people to different standards and grant them different rights? Which one is right, the suspension of the Creator’s endowed rights or the right to abolish governments? We can’t play both sides, unless of course not everything is black and white.

“Shame on the world for taking so long to take him out.” – Shame on us for playing along with him for so long and helping him become the monster he is. He served our agenda once and some might say he is helping to serve another agenda now. This is not because he is a “bad dude” alone. There are lots of “bad dudes” all over America and around the world. There is something more behind this than him just being a “bad dude.” To oversimplify it is to buy into the seducing comfort of arrogant mental lethargy. This, like everything else is not black and white.

“But the polls I’ve seen for the US show that most Americans agree with the overall actions in Iraq.” – No doubt those polls were disseminated to you through an upstanding news agency that stands as a bastion of freedom and impartial reporting like Fox News or Rush Limbaugh. Here is what CNN has to say about it:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/14/bush.kerry/index.html

If you check it out you might realize almost everything is split nearly down the middle and even the stuff that does show a trend one way or the other can be negated by the margin of error. How can so many people be so divided if something is so clearly right? Perhaps it’s because it’s not black and white.

Jeff –

“…for whatever reason, Saddam was not a target at the beginning of the first war.” – That unfortunately was an administrative mistake and what that I in my very formative years was still able to recognize. As I mentioned earlier any flaws in a ceasefire agreement should have included the removal of Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party from power. To have failed to do that was our error. This Bush didn’t care about public opinion in doing what he deemed right, why did that Bush, unless, it somehow suited his agenda. We might have been perceived as evil then, but arguably no less evil than we seem now. It is a fickle world and to that I can drink, because heaven knows it ain’t black or white.

“I think getting rid of Saddam was enough justification to go to war with his army.” – I don’t disagree. I would like to point out however, that there are a lot of governments that should be abolished and done away with and to pick and choose who gets to stay is not consistent. It’s hypocritical and convenient. If we were the knight in shining armor out to protect human rights and freedom around the globe we would still be on the warpath dealing out “justice” and “freedom” to just about every country that borders Iraq, including some of our greatest allies in the region.

“I have yet to see a single Iraqi say they are angry that Saddam was removed from power.” – Neither have I. I might have heard some speak out against the way it was handled, but the dead cannot speak. If I had a choice of living peacefully with my family in a country with restricted freedoms or living with one arm and losing my family in a bomb blast, I would be hard pressed to make a decision. Unfortunately Iraq has been well associated with the “don’t speak out against government” process of ruling and old habits diehard. I would be leery to criticize the new kid on the block just because I remember what the old kid was like. More importantly than any of that though, most of the opponents of the US occupation and invasion are now toting guns and voicing their complaint against US soldiers. Somewhere they gained more American culture than I had previously thought. They have gained this sense that everything is black and white and things can only be resolved through battles of the two great echo chambers. Unfortunately they don’t handle it as “civilly” as the Republicans and Democrats do with mudslinging and their selective use of data and facts to support their cause. They go straight for the guns and attempt to silence the opposition’s echo chamber. If they would stop shooting (and yelling in the case of our own two political monopolies) and examine what the other was trying to say you might have a lot more understanding and a lot more progress. It’s funny that Republicans want to spread freedom, liberty, and maintain traditional values and Democrats want to give everyone the same opportunities, take care of this world, and protect individual freedoms. When you look at it like that they both seem like pretty decent organizations. Why is it that they don’t see it in each other? Why is it they can’t take what they want and compromise in seeking for a better world? Because everyone is trying to fit the world (which is not black and white) into this fake mental abstract of right and wrong (which is black and white) and failing to see the forest for the trees.

“The enemy of my enemy is NOT NECESSARILY my friend.” – I would hope that we could also learn “My friend is NOT NECESSARILY my friend.” I hope for a better future too.

I didn’t want to post again, but I couldn’t resist. Sometimes I get so frustrated watching everyone pat each other on the back and scream for the sake of noise in their echo chambers. I rarely find someone who is interested in politics that takes the time to look at the good and bad points of each argument. I am going to tell you something that may not surprise you. I am not a Republican. I am going to tell you something that may surprise you. I am not a Democrat either. I find it hard to be a boy that has conflicting values from both parties’ platforms and more than that to be a person who sees the world in shades of gray trying to fit into a structure that doesn’t support that type of point of view. Perhaps I played the devil’s advocate here a little (at least in a black and white perspective,) but it was only to get a chance to expose some of the things that frustrate me. If I upset anyone I would like to apologize and thank Jeff for offering me a place to express my views.

Comment by Scott-in-Japan

8 June 2004 @ 12:17 am

Joel -

“Saddam was wrong and the Kurds were right” – How were they right exactly?
- They were right in their “treasonous” fight against Saddam (scroll up a bit to see the comment).

If Native Americans, Hawaiians, etc. rose up in bloody rebellion against the United States would you support that?
- Too late, it’s America now. They were physcially beaten, and as callous as this sounds, they lost.

According to the standard you are basing right and wrong they would be justified in doing this.
- Well, would have been. A good example of why winning is the only thing that matters in war.

What were your thoughts about Iran in all of this?
- The gov’t of Iran needs to go.

Were they right too?
- They were right to defend themselves, but the actual details of the Iran-Iraq conflict are a bit fuzzy to me. And to be honest, 2 evil gov’ts going at each other doesn’t strike me a something to over-analyze.

They also happened to be fighting Iraq.
- The world has more than one bad guy in it. And bad guys fight among themselves.

But aren’t they also a member of the axis of evil?
- Like I said, they need to go.

How can they be both evil and right at the same time?
- It’s not an “either-or” proposition. There are degrees of evil.

Or does having American support make your cause right?
- American support makes your cause the most-closely-aligned to American goals. Even if you are bad.

In that case wouldn’t all three sides of that war be right?
- Remember, it’s not a matter of simply right or wrong. There are levels of evil.

Since we were secretly supplying and inciting all of them to fight and kill each other?
- If it saves American lives, why not? I say this hypothetically, don’t bother calling me inconsiderate.

If all three of them were right, then whom should we condemn?
- They aren’t all right.

Like I said it’s not black and white.
- And here at the end you almost get it - it’s not black and white. There are shades of black.

Comment by Joel

8 June 2004 @ 2:15 am

“Saddam was wrong and the Kurds were right” – How were they right exactly? - They were right in their “treasonous” fight against Saddam (scroll up a bit to see the comment).

I saw your comment and it makes no sense. If fighting a treasonous fight makes someone right, then all terrorist groups are in the right and we should be supporting terror rather than fighting it. If they were right, how come the United States did not work to establish a separate Kurdish state in the North? (Perhaps because our ally Turkey didn’t want their Kurds to get any ideas…) If you’re not going to offer an argument for it rather than continually just asserting it is correct you should give up.

If Native Americans, Hawaiians, etc. rose up in bloody rebellion against the United States would you support that? - Too late, it’s America now. They were physcially beaten, and as callous as this sounds, they lost.

Too late it’s Turkey, Jordan, Syria, Iran, and Iraq now and the Kurds have been physically beaten. It is callous and it is life. But the example I was giving was a hypothetical used for thinking. What if the Native Americans and Hawaiians hadn’t accepted defeat and were still attacking radio stations and old prisons? Much like the Kurds are still under the delusion that they will one day have Kurdistan, would you support them then? It’s foolish to romanticize the Kurds as freedom fighters when they use a lot of the same terror tactics that the Palestinians and other terrorist organizations we fight against use.

What were your thoughts about Iran in all of this? - The gov’t of Iran needs to go.

I hope when someone decides it’s time, you volunteer to go. Which reminds me, why aren’t you in Iraq this time around?

Were they right too? - They were right to defend themselves, but the actual details of the Iran-Iraq conflict are a bit fuzzy to me. And to be honest, 2 evil gov’ts going at each other doesn’t strike me a something to over-analyze.

Since the facts are a bit fuzzy to you let me provide you with some:
(Which can be found here: http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/united_states_iran_iraq_war1.php)

The Persian Gulf War
The United States did not have diplomatic relations with either belligerent in 1980 and announced its neutrality in the conflict. One typically humanitarian State Department official explained in 1983: “we don’t give a damn as long as the Iran-Iraq carnage does not affect our allies in the region or alter the balance of power.”[29] In fact, however, the United States was not indifferent to the war, but saw a number of positive opportunities opened up by its prolongation.

The need for arms and money would make Baghdad more dependent on the conservative Gulf states and Egypt, thereby moderating Iraq’s policies and helping to repair ties between Cairo and the other Arab states. The war would make Iran — whose weapons had all been U.S.-supplied in the past — desperate to obtain U.S. equipment and spare parts. The exigencies of war might make both nations more willing to restore their relations with Washington. Alternatively, the dislocations of war might give the U.S. greater ability to carry out covert operations in Iran or Iraq. And turmoil in the Gulf might make other states in the area more susceptible to U.S. pressure for military cooperation.

When the war first broke out, the Soviet Union turned back its arms ships en route to Iraq, and for the next year and a half, while Iraq was on the offensive, Moscow did not provide weapons to Baghdad.[30] In March 1981, the Iraqi Communist Party, repressed by Saddam Hussein, beamed broadcasts from the Soviet Union calling for an end to the war and the withdrawal of Iraqi troops.[31] That same month U.S. Secretary of State Alexander Haig told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he saw the possibility of improved ties with Baghdad and approvingly noted that Iraq was concerned by “the behavior of Soviet imperialism in the Middle Eastern area.” The U.S. then approved the sale to Iraq of five Boeing jetliners, and sent a deputy assistant secretary of state to Baghdad for talks.[32] The U.S. removed Iraq from its notoriously selective list of nations supporting international terrorism[33] (despite the fact that terrorist Abu Nidal was based in the country)[34] and Washington extended a $400 million credit guarantee for U.S. exports to Iraq.[35] In November 1984, the U.S. and Iraq restored diplomatic relations, which had been ruptured in 1967.[36]

There is a load for more information on that site and the varying pages linked through that site I hope you sit down and take the opportunity to read through some of it before arguing something you are fuzzy on. We financially and militarily supported Iraq, the aggressor in that conflict, because we were afraid of the big bad Soviet Union. So now what? What shade of black does that make us? I thought you said, “They were right to defend themselves.” How can that be true if the United States was supporting further penetration into Iran by Iraqi forces?

“It’s not an “either-or” proposition. There are degrees of evil.”

There are degrees of evil. Those degrees are not limited to third world Arab nations in the South. They include the powerful economic giants of the North as well.

Since we were secretly supplying and inciting all of them to fight and kill each other?
- If it saves American lives, why not? I say this hypothetically, don’t bother calling me inconsiderate.

There was no indication that any of what we did saved any American lives. Russia never got involved and we fueled an 8-year conflict that resulted in more than a million deaths and a monumental waste of resources that left both regimes still in power. What good came of that?

Are American lives more important than other lives around the world? Will you openly admit that you believe all men were not created equal? Do you then want to go ahead and say that mankind is not a brotherhood, and that we are not all equal in the eyes of God? Say it and you probably disagree with whatever religious group you belong to and that lovely piece of (what you’re making me believe is) American fiction I quoted in the last post. If I offered you two choices and asked whether you would be willing to let millions of people die in genocide in Africa or a couple thousand in another comparable incident to what occurred in New York on 9/11, which would you choose? You’re making me think you would choose the former. It might qualify you for the presidency. God is no more a respecter of nations than he is a respecter of persons. It’s something to keep in mind.

“And here at the end you almost get it - it’s not black and white. There are shades of black.”

There are shades of black. Let’s look at some:

“American support makes your cause the most-closely-aligned to American goals. Even if you are bad.” (So you admit that America uses evil forces to accomplish her goals. How can this be possible unless America’s goals themselves are evil? It’s a far cry from consistent messages and a peaceful world that’s for damn sure.)

“…winning is the only thing that matters in war” (Is it? So you don’t support Geneva Conventions? You agree with the beheading, mistreating, and executions of prisoners? Wouldn’t this also mean you agree with nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons as a means to victory?)

“They were physcially beaten, and as callous as this sounds, they lost.” (“Never, never, never, give up,” a powerful man once said. Although some called him beaten he never gave up and the world is a better place for it. Your semi-selective choosing who gets to endure to the end in the cause of “justice” and who should just shut up and learn their place is inconsistent and biased.)

“the actual details of the Iran-Iraq conflict are a bit fuzzy to me.” (Ignorantly forming beliefs that one then professes to others is evil. Spreading an opinion unsupported by documentation is just another brash form of propaganda that hurts the world.)

“Since we were secretly supplying and inciting all of them to fight and kill each other?
- If it saves American lives, why not? I say this hypothetically, don’t bother calling me inconsiderate” (I discussed it before, but who has the authority to place a value on one life more than another? I can assure you it’s not you or I. To be so presumptuous is to defecate on the constitution, bill of rights, and the philosophies of liberty, freedom, justice, and equality.)

So what shade of black are we? What shade of black are you?

Comment by Scott-in-Japan

8 June 2004 @ 11:26 am

Joel -

“Saddam was wrong and the Kurds were right” I saw your comment and it makes no sense.
- The Kurds are morally right to fight Saddam. What part of that can’t you understand?
- I’m not romanticizing the Kurds at all. The only fact that matters today is that they are fighting Saddam. Their goals align with ours, end of story.
- As for your hypothetical case of previous peoples still fighting with the US…bad example to choose, it’s irrelevant.

“What were your thoughts about Iran in all of this? - The gov’t of Iran needs to go.”
I hope when someone decides it’s time, you volunteer to go. Which reminds me, why aren’t you in Iraq this time around?
- Back injury (motorcyle accident thanks to a car running a light).

“the actual details of the Iran-Iraq conflict are a bit fuzzy to me.”
- By ‘details’ I meant the timeline. Both places were run by unfriendly gov’ts, and they have a lot of hate-your-neighbor animosity thrown in. Russia and Western countries took sides, welcome to life.
- And calling me ‘evil’ is just silly. I am ignorant of details that don’t alter the outcome, perhaps, but not evil.

“…winning is the only thing that matters in war”
- More precisely, it is the only thing that matters in history.
- Geneva Conventions? I support them fully on a reciprocal basis - if the terrorists don’t play by the rules, we can’t be expected to do the same. Although we have, and will, to the best of our ability.

“but who has the authority to place a value on one life more than another?”
- We each have the authority to place the value of our life where we choose. It is up to everyone to decide if the lives of others have a higher place, or not. I place my life above those who wish to kill me and remove my freedom, period.

“So you admit that America uses evil forces to accomplish her goals. How can this be possible unless America’s goals themselves are evil?”
- The ‘evil forces’ used were less evil than their opponents. Shades of black - side with the lessor of evils because sometimes your choice is Really Bad vs. Not Quite So Bad.
- Evil and Good use the same methods. The only difference between good and evil in war is motivation. The USA has a higher threshold of pain to cross before it uses WMD, but if attacked with such, the methods will be the same.
- The superiority of the West is in it’s motivation - Western civilization. Not rolling back the clock to the 12th century and letting Islamic extremists have their way.

“So what shade of black are we? What shade of black are you?”
- The USA is for civilization as we know it in the West. The terrorists are against that. The people who align more closely with the side of our enemy are, you guessed it, opposed to us.

What shade of black are you?

Comment by Joel

11 June 2004 @ 12:31 am

“The Kurds are morally right to fight Saddam. What part of that can’t you understand? I’m not romanticizing the Kurds at all.”

If you’re not romanticizing them please explain this to me.

You said, “Saddam was wrong and the Kurds were right” and “the Kurds were right to fight Saddam.”

I said, “How were they right exactly?… What were your thoughts about Iran in all of this? They also happened to be fighting Iraq. But aren’t they also a member of the axis of evil? How can they be both evil and right at the same time?”

You said, “They were right in their “treasonous” fight against Saddam”

I said, “If fighting a treasonous fight makes someone right, then all terrorist groups are in the right and we should be supporting terror rather than fighting it.”

You said, “The Kurds are morally right to fight Saddam. What part of that can’t you understand?”

Which brings me back to my point that if fighting Saddam makes your morally right, then Iran is a moral model, as well as several other fundamentalist and terrorist factions in Iraq that once fought Saddam and now are currently attacking US forces. Kurds are included in that group.

This is the part I can’t understand. Perhaps it would surprise you that the Kurdish freedom movement has been labeled a terrorist organization by the European Union. Or that Turkey threatened to attack Kurdish strongholds in Northern Iraq unless the U.S. did something to remove them because of the constant attacks and threat of attacks on Turkey, as well as every nation that houses Kurds, in an attempt to create a free Kurd nation. Here’s an excerpt from that article:

(http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/10/1068329489825.html?oneclick=true)

Turkey has warned it might intervene to disarm and evict Kurdish guerillas from their mountain strongholds in northern Iraq if the United States fails to do so.

“The US has promised to remove the terrorists,” said the Turkish Foreign Minister, Abdullah Gul. “We are still waiting for America to fulfill its promise. We believe that it will.

“But Turkey has the right to take pre-emptive action to defend its own security interests, just as Israel and the US do. The US Government must take this issue seriously.”

How can a terrorist organization be morally right? How is what we have promised to do for Turkey any different than what Saddam took it upon himself to do? One of the basic principles of international politics is that each nation handles its own internal affairs. If it the Kurds are a terrorist organization the current Iraqi government was no less justified in dealing with it than the US was at Waco or Ruby Ridge. Kurds are no different than the PLO, but you’ll hear no sympathy for the Palestinians from the right wing because Americans love Israel, a contrivance of the west to give itself a foothold in the Middle East.

The only reason you hear about the poor Kurdish victims is because it adds weight to the propaganda the government is spouting. The truth is the Kurds should be on our list of organizations to remove if we are looking for moral goodness. In the end we probably will remove the Kurdish terrorist elements like we promised to. We have used them to gain support for a war in Iraq and now we will take them out to gain support from our ally Turkey. You won’t hear any talk about the killing of innocent Kurds when we do it though (except from the left), I can guarantee it. Both sides are so naïve.

“As for your hypothetical case of previous peoples still fighting with the US…bad example to choose, it’s irrelevant.”

My example is not irrelevant. It is only irrelevant as you fail to comprehend it. Those peoples sought independence for themselves and were repeatedly denied by a tyrannical democracy that sought to use them and their resources as pawns. The existence of a tyrannical democracy, imagine that? Realists probably did when they realized people are selfish in interests for the disregard of others (especially the out-group) even when voting in large groups. The peoples I mentioned attempts to self-determination and sovereignty would be just as valid as the Kurds claims to the same, but everyone would view any attempt by the former to be utterly absurd. It’s odd we entertain the latter’s.

“Back injury (motorcyle accident thanks to a car running a light).”

That is a sad turn of events. I wouldn’t wish that on anyone. A sadder turn of events however is that 17 year old boys who want so desperately to come to America and become citizens are signing up for the military as the quick path to citizenship only to be shipped off to die defending someone else’s beliefs.

“And calling me ‘evil’ is just silly. I am ignorant of details that don’t alter the outcome, perhaps, but not evil”

It might have been uncalled for but the premise behind it is not silly. Ignorance in relations to the steps leading to the outcome is evil. Especially for one who wants to argue points relating to such outcomes. If we saw 12 million people put to death in Nazi prison camps and just noted the outcome rather than the steps that led up to it then we are simply inviting those same turn of events in the future. If you fail to look at the details then before you realize it you have become what you are trying so desperately to fight against. If we fail to learn from the processes that lead to outcomes then we doom ourselves to relive the mistakes of our predecessors. That is at best stupidity and at worst evil.

“…if the terrorists don’t play by the rules, we can’t be expected to do the same. Although we have, and will, to the best of our ability.”
We have not done it to the best of our abilities. We have continually interfered in the internal affairs of other nations, assassinating leaders, installing our own puppet governments, supporting terrorist cells and ‘freedom fighters,’ etc. Things that would never fly in our own country are our tools for dealing with international “threats”. We do it in secret and we try to keep the majority of the information classified, but even with what little has been revealed our unethical involvement in countless tragedies, massacres, rebellions, and assassinations is astonishing. It goes back to what I was saying about the constitution and the Bill of Rights, if we believe the same rules apply to all people then we should act accordingly. You don’t see us bombing opponents, assassinations, or plotting coups in American politics. Why is it cool to do overseas?

“Evil and Good use the same methods. The only difference between good and evil in war is motivation.”

How can anyone be sure what the motivation really is? There are verbal aspects to motivation and abstract aspects to it that fail to register on the radars of even the most self-aware people. Not to mention when you have so many people gathered together pushing (or being pushed) towards a common goal no one has the same motivations. You said our goal is the same as the Kurds, but their goal is Kurdistan and our goals are wide and varied and none of which include the formation of a Kurdish state. I guarantee you that the members of the administration all have different goals for the War of Terror and the war in Iraq. There is a reason that a recent study found so many reasons (I believe it was 27, but I can’t remember for sure you are free to check it out on Brian’s site that Jeff has linked) for going to war in Iraq and it doesn’t necessarily have to do with the administration back peddling or changing reasons for an invasion, it has to do with the fact that you have lots of people talking about what their motivation for the war was and that’s that. I am surprised the number wasn’t larger than it was. I had friends who were glad to get shipped off to Iraq because he would receive combat pay and get out of a semester in school he had been struggling. I know people who were excited to go because it was a new experience. I know people who were hesitant to go because they had no idea what to expect, but felt it was there duty and they had given their word. Every soldier there, every citizen in America has a slightly different opinion and it can’t be encompassed with right or wrong or claiming what “our motivations” are.

I am not anti-American in spite what you might think Scott. I just don’t believe in all encompassing statements of right and wrong and morality. I don’t believe in attributing values to people from my country I have never met or applying a higher moral code to our countries behaviors. I love America. I love my family and myself. I don’t however think that any of them (myself included) are always right. Everyone, on an individual and national level, does what they do in order to provide the best possible life for themselves and their own. My vain hope for the future is that everyone can one day see everyone else as their own family, but until then I am willing to accept that people will make decisions unfairly biased and hypocritically applied to provide for those closest to them. We don’t need to justify it by saying it’s right or wrong because that is not a universal concept. It’s genetics. It’s biology. It’s not perpetuation of the species, it’s perpetuation of my seed. My problem is when we fail to justify our actions to ourselves. If we can’t be accountable to ourselves then what have we become?

Comment by Sugar Shin

11 June 2004 @ 8:13 pm

For those interested in the current situation of the Kurdish dominated Northern Iraq there are interesting articles at Asia Times.

Kurdistan: No more Mr Nice Guy

and

Northern Iraq - calm like a bomb

Comment by Scott-in-Japan

11 June 2004 @ 9:44 pm

“if fighting Saddam makes your morally right”
The Kurds aren’t perfect, that wasn’t my claim, Their self-defense fight against Saddam is morally justified - not treasonous.

“Ignorance in relations to the steps leading to the outcome is evil.”
I understand the events just fine. But I didn’t know the dates to assign to all of the actions.

“A sadder turn of events however is that 17 year old boys who want so desperately to come to America and become citizens are signing up for the military as the quick path to citizenship only to be shipped off to die defending someone else’s beliefs. ”
This is a non-sequitur. If you don’t want to die for someone else’s beliefs, don’t join someone else’s military. No one is forced to join the US military. US citizenship is not a right to whomever shows up at the border.
What this desperation shows is how bad the rest of the world can be. It’s so bad that kids are driven to extreme actions in a foreign land to improve their, and their family’s, lot in life. Which is an outstanding advertisement for America.

“How can anyone be sure what the motivation really is?”
Ask them. Make an educated guess.

Do other people have different, but overlapping motivations? Of course, that’s what this whole discussion is about.

Everyone has their own common interest. And different people work together on common interests - even if those people have other, diverging interests.

“My problem is when we fail to justify our actions to ourselves.”
We have justified our actions to ourselves in this case. More specifically, our government has justified our collective actions. Saddam was a threat and had to go.

“If we can’t be accountable to ourselves then what have we become?”
Then we have left reality. Our actions always have consequences. If we simply don’t care about what we do, we are simply arrogant.

Trackback by About Joel... 조엘에 대하여...

21 August 2004 @ 1:46 pm

너는 그냥 내가 하는 소리라고 생각했겠지만…

Here is a look at some of the seedling trays before they are put on the machine to be placed in rows in the fields. Here is a look at the trays from close up. If you want to…