Freethought & Rationalism Archive

ProNihil · 02-21-2003, 05:47 PM

Ok, I know that there is a place to care about the differing worldviews of conservatives and liberals, but this, in my opinion is not one of them.

I have heard that Saddam Hussein has tortured many people. Think "Marathon Man", think "Midnight Express." I heard that he tortures parents in front of their children and vice versa. I imagined myself in that position and it brought me to tears. I don't know about the ethics of innocent civilians being killed in war, but I have a feeling that if some of those people over there got a taste of the freedoms that we take for granted, that they would be willing to die for them just as our forefathers and family members were.

Some people here in these forums take great pride in dissecting the "loving god" theory and dashing it to the ground and I cannot say that I disagree. But... I for one think that it would be nice if that theory could be replaced with the "loving humanist" theory that states something along the lines of "since I love other people, I will do something about their suffering."

I have really tried to reconcile all of this waiting buisness and arms inspection bullshit but I cannot. I mean for christs sake! how long does it take to dig a hole out in the middle of nowhere to hide weapons in? How long does it take to hide weapons in someones house under penalty of torture and death if they talk? I really truly don't get it. This is searching for a needle in a universe made of hay, and it is pure folly.

Saddam and his regime are cowardly, murderous, beings with no soul (whatever your definition of that may be) and they deserve to be judged by the rest of humanity.

I know that this is not a popular stance, especially in these forums, but my conscience would not let me do otherwise, and I felt it important to say something. Also because I am interested in what your consciences have dictated to you and why.

p.s.- I am NOT attempting to start a flame war (or whatever it's called when people call eachother names all day) or something. I would like to see some intelligent feedback on this one.

lpetrich · 02-21-2003, 05:59 PM

Be careful of what one does about it -- it might be a cure worse than the disease.

Especially if one considers some of the rumors of the Seedling Administration's plans for occupied Iraq:

* Letting the Turks have northern Iraq with all its Kurds.

* Having most of Saddam's regime in place, except for its top leaders -- "meet your new boss, the same as your old boss" -- the pigs turn human -- ...

Godbert · 02-21-2003, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ProNihil
I don't know about the ethics of innocent civilians being killed in war, but I have a feeling that if some of those people over there got a taste of the freedoms that we take for granted, that they would be willing to die for them just as our forefathers and family members were.

.....

How long does it take to hide weapons in someones house under penalty of torture and death if they talk? I really truly don't get it. This is searching for a needle in a universe made of hay, and it is pure folly.

top reasoning skills

ProNihil · 02-21-2003, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich
Be careful of what one does about it -- it might be a cure worse than the disease.

Especially if one considers some of the rumors of the Seedling Administration's plans for occupied Iraq:

* Letting the Turks have northern Iraq with all its Kurds.

* Having most of Saddam's regime in place, except for its top leaders -- "meet your new boss, the same as your old boss" -- the pigs turn human -- ...

Yes, those are things to think about before action is taken. I guess that I am going on a more "utopian style" dream here that our country would actually want to help. Nay, I believe that our country as a democratic society does want to help but with all the spin doctoring going around and overloads of information directed at us civilians, that probably isn't a possibility.

It's just that the injustice of all of this big fat mess makes me sick to my stomach. I can't stand the thought of people being tortured and gassed while a large portion of the world lives in relative peace compared to that. FUUUUCK!!! :banghead:

ProNihil · 02-21-2003, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Godbert
top reasoning skills

How so Godbert?

yaktldg · 02-21-2003, 06:42 PM

I'm with you, ProNihil. But you assume Washington has such benevolent plans as you do. Our foreign policy does not suggest a country concerned with human rights or democracy.

No country spends $1 trillion and thousands of lives to liberate an (as they see it) insignificant population from a monster that same country created.

Quote:

I quote World War II: The Good War? which quotes "The Council on Foreign Relations, an organization that worked closely with the State Department, issued a series of studies to help define U.S. war aims." and this was World War II!:

"If war aims are stated which seem to be concerned solely with Anglo-American imperialism, they would offer little to the people in the rest of the world and will be vulnerable to Nazi counter-promises. Such aims would also strengthen the most reactionary elements in the United States and the British Empire. The interests of other people should be stressed, not only those of Europe, but also of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. This would have a better propaganda effect."

Two articles ran on CounterPunch.org today, which I think are worthy of discussion, that cover possible war aims:
Of Oil, the Euro and Africa
Israel's Proxy War?

pronihil: "I have heard that Saddam Hussein has tortured many people."

You think Bush cares or is moved by such a thought as you were? Israel (internationally condemned for its use) is a big fan of torture, but the US is still sending them $2 billion in military aid.

Quote:

Amnesty attacks Iraq torture dossier:

Amnesty International said a dossier released today by the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, listing torture, rapes and other abuses perpetrated by the Baghdad regime, is a "cold and calculated manipulation" of the work of human rights activists.

"Let us not forget that these same governments turned a blind eye to Amnesty International's reports of widespread human rights violations in Iraq before the Gulf war," the group's secretary general, Irene Khan, said.

"They remained silent when thousands of unarmed Kurdish civilians were killed in Halabja in 1988."

"I don't know about the ethics of innocent civilians being killed in war, but I have a feeling that if some of those people over there got a taste of the freedoms that we take for granted, that they would be willing to die for them just as our forefathers and family members were. "

I agree. Let's get off their shoulders first, so they can stand a chance at liberating themselves.

"I for one think that it would be nice if that theory could be replaced with the "loving humanist" theory that states something along the lines of "since I love other people, I will do something about their suffering.""

I agree.

"I have really tried to reconcile all of this waiting buisness and arms inspection bullshit but I cannot. I mean for christs sake! how long does it take to dig a hole out in the middle of nowhere to hide weapons in? How long does it take to hide weapons in someones house under penalty of torture and death if they talk? I really truly don't get it."

The US has the most weapons and mass destruction which are responsible for more deaths than any other country's, certainly more than Saddam's. If you want to do the most good, it seems to me like your country is the best place to start.

"Saddam and his regime are cowardly, murderous, beings with no soul (whatever your definition of that may be) and they deserve to be judged by the rest of humanity."

Absolutely. Do with Saddam whatever you do with war criminals, and help Iraq rebuild from a 20 year streak of Saddam's wars and oppression, and US/British sanctions and bombings. You don't have to kill tens of thousands of civilians to accomplish this.

Count me in on your vision of a free Iraq, but I will have nothing to do with an imperialist war.

ProNihil · 02-21-2003, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gqtie

Absolutely. Do with Saddam whatever you do with war criminals, and help Iraq rebuild from a 20 year streak of Saddam's wars and oppression, and US/British sanctions and bombings. You don't have to kill tens of thousands of civilians to accomplish this.

Count me in on your vision of a free Iraq, but I will have nothing to do with an imperialist war.

Thank you for your thoughtful assesment of my post. I have learned things that I had not heard about i.e. Israels torture record for one. You have given me much to think about.

I do have one immediate question however, and that is, how do we dispose of Saddam and more importantly his philosophy, while maintaining peace in that region? I know I sound like a total lightweight here but it seems to me that someone in his position would rather "go out in a hail of bullets" than accept some kind of UN sanctioned "dismissal" or (I'm having a brain fart here, whenever someone gets kicked out of their country, what's that called?) banishment.

Happy Wonderer · 02-21-2003, 07:16 PM

There are a couple of problems with the idea that we can fix the world. The first is that we (as the United States) have a pretty mixed record. Although we have done good things (Kosovo, the rebuilding of Japan, Berlin airlift) we have also supported some pretty atrocious regimes (Guatamala, the Shah of Iran, Saddam before the Gulf war, Noriega) and many repressive ones (almost anybody in the Middle East.) Leave aside democracy, read amnesty.org's webpage for descriptions of torture in many states we consider friendly.

The second is that we may not like the results. If we were to somehow open all Middle Eastern states to democracy, I think Osama would probably get the most votes. We have to face the fact that a large percentage of the world's population doesn't like us. Most probably wouldn't like us anyway, but our history doesn't help.

Another is the simple one of "where do we stop?" As soon as you justify the violent overthrow of one bad guy, you commit yourself to overthrowing all of them. What gives us the right to take on most of the world by military means?

Finally, in Iraq I think that we are letting wishful thinking color our planning. It isn't true that "anyone is better than Saddam" -- at least for the Iraqi people. Materially, before the sanctions the average citizen's life was pretty reasonable -- as far as citizens living under parinoid corrupt dictators goes, that is. Many things would be as bad or worse -- warlords as in Afgahanastan, civil war, three-way war between the Kurds, the Turks, and Iran, and of course the rise of a repressive fundamental regime. Killing Iraquis is kind of an odd way of bringing peace and freedom to them, and starving them for 10 years isn't likely to make them open to our suggestions about how they should run their lives.

I believe that a better way to achieve change is through engagement. Sanctions do not seem to work (we have had sanctions against Cuba for how many years?) In Iraq's case we have gotten them to a point where there is really nothing more for them to lose. Since he has realized that there is no way that the US is going to relent against him, Saddam's only hope is to trigger a wide-ranging conflict that has a chance of keeping him in power (or at least feeling good about how many Americans die.) Over the years we have thought that we were keeping Saddam in a box, but I think we have really put ourselves in a box -- and our attempt at solving the problem we have partially created is leading to global problems for this country.

Torture worldwide

HW

Danya · 02-21-2003, 08:25 PM

Shock and Awe is as evil as anything Saddam has ever done. We plan on doing this to a city full of people and homes. And it's not about democracy anymore. That's been scrapped for occupation and war camps.

Quote:

Shock and Awe," developed in 1996. The plan could result in at least 300 Tomahawk cruise missiles raining down on Baghdad in just the first day of an aerial campaign - more than were used on all targets in the entire Gulf War. And the plan calls for an equal or greater number on the second day as well, up to 800 total, each capable of carrying 1,000 pounds of explosives. There was no estimate of how many days the bombing would continue.

Although missiles would likely focus on infrastructure including electricity and water supplies, an average of one missile striking a city of 5 million inhabitants every four minutes around the clock could kill and maim thousands of civilians.

"There will not be a safe place in Baghdad," according to an unnamed Pentagon official quoted by CBS. "The sheer size of this has never been seen before, never been contemplated before."

Mr. Superbad · 02-21-2003, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Danya
Shock and Awe is as evil as anything Saddam has ever done. We plan on doing this to a city full of people and homes. And it's not about democracy anymore. That's been scrapped for occupation and war camps.

That sfgate article is a bunch of crap. It tries to paint the "shock and awe" tactic as being a carpet bombing of the city, when everything i've read about this indicates the exact opposite with careful targetting of communication centers and the upper ranks of the Iraqi army in order to make the enemy surrender. Killing a ton of people in Baghdad is the exact opposite of what they are trying to achieve.

02-21-2003, 05:47 PM	#1
ProNihil Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: USA Posts: 228	Dubya/Liberals= who cares! But what about PURE EVIL? Ok, I know that there is a place to care about the differing worldviews of conservatives and liberals, but this, in my opinion is not one of them. I have heard that Saddam Hussein has tortured many people. Think "Marathon Man", think "Midnight Express." I heard that he tortures parents in front of their children and vice versa. I imagined myself in that position and it brought me to tears. I don't know about the ethics of innocent civilians being killed in war, but I have a feeling that if some of those people over there got a taste of the freedoms that we take for granted, that they would be willing to die for them just as our forefathers and family members were. Some people here in these forums take great pride in dissecting the "loving god" theory and dashing it to the ground and I cannot say that I disagree. But... I for one think that it would be nice if that theory could be replaced with the "loving humanist" theory that states something along the lines of "since I love other people, I will do something about their suffering." I have really tried to reconcile all of this waiting buisness and arms inspection bullshit but I cannot. I mean for christs sake! how long does it take to dig a hole out in the middle of nowhere to hide weapons in? How long does it take to hide weapons in someones house under penalty of torture and death if they talk? I really truly don't get it. This is searching for a needle in a universe made of hay, and it is pure folly. Saddam and his regime are cowardly, murderous, beings with no soul (whatever your definition of that may be) and they deserve to be judged by the rest of humanity. I know that this is not a popular stance, especially in these forums, but my conscience would not let me do otherwise, and I felt it important to say something. Also because I am interested in what your consciences have dictated to you and why. p.s.- I am NOT attempting to start a flame war (or whatever it's called when people call eachother names all day) or something. I would like to see some intelligent feedback on this one.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-21-2003, 05:59 PM	#2
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Be careful of what one does about it -- it might be a cure worse than the disease. Especially if one considers some of the rumors of the Seedling Administration's plans for occupied Iraq: * Letting the Turks have northern Iraq with all its Kurds. * Having most of Saddam's regime in place, except for its top leaders -- "meet your new boss, the same as your old boss" -- the pigs turn human -- ...

02-21-2003, 07:16 PM	#8
Happy Wonderer Veteran Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Washington, the least religious state Posts: 5,334	There are a couple of problems with the idea that we can fix the world. The first is that we (as the United States) have a pretty mixed record. Although we have done good things (Kosovo, the rebuilding of Japan, Berlin airlift) we have also supported some pretty atrocious regimes (Guatamala, the Shah of Iran, Saddam before the Gulf war, Noriega) and many repressive ones (almost anybody in the Middle East.) Leave aside democracy, read amnesty.org's webpage for descriptions of torture in many states we consider friendly. The second is that we may not like the results. If we were to somehow open all Middle Eastern states to democracy, I think Osama would probably get the most votes. We have to face the fact that a large percentage of the world's population doesn't like us. Most probably wouldn't like us anyway, but our history doesn't help. Another is the simple one of "where do we stop?" As soon as you justify the violent overthrow of one bad guy, you commit yourself to overthrowing all of them. What gives us the right to take on most of the world by military means? Finally, in Iraq I think that we are letting wishful thinking color our planning. It isn't true that "anyone is better than Saddam" -- at least for the Iraqi people. Materially, before the sanctions the average citizen's life was pretty reasonable -- as far as citizens living under parinoid corrupt dictators goes, that is. Many things would be as bad or worse -- warlords as in Afgahanastan, civil war, three-way war between the Kurds, the Turks, and Iran, and of course the rise of a repressive fundamental regime. Killing Iraquis is kind of an odd way of bringing peace and freedom to them, and starving them for 10 years isn't likely to make them open to our suggestions about how they should run their lives. I believe that a better way to achieve change is through engagement. Sanctions do not seem to work (we have had sanctions against Cuba for how many years?) In Iraq's case we have gotten them to a point where there is really nothing more for them to lose. Since he has realized that there is no way that the US is going to relent against him, Saddam's only hope is to trigger a wide-ranging conflict that has a chance of keeping him in power (or at least feeling good about how many Americans die.) Over the years we have thought that we were keeping Saddam in a box, but I think we have really put ourselves in a box -- and our attempt at solving the problem we have partially created is leading to global problems for this country. Torture worldwide HW

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.