open Democracy News Analysis - So you think that invading Iraq has made you safer........., - Comments

brolly3 on "So you think that invading Iraq has made you safer........."

brolly3 — Thu, 07 Jul 2005 21:10:11 +0100

TimLFrancis, Brolly, where does this end? The endless claims and counter-claims can, of course, go back to the destruction of the Temple by the Romans. Is it even useful to argue over who has a greater "claim" to the land? As an aside, there were also moves to establish Jewish "homelands" in Siberia, Dutch Surinam and Australia during the 1930-40s. The latter movement collapsed because the Australian trade unions refused to support the idea. Nice of them, don't you think? [comment aimed at GTJ] Rather than rehash the history of the Cold War -- which has everything to do with those UN resolutions -- and the failures of Arafat's PLA, why don't you actually talk about what is happening on the ground right now? Is the pullout from Gaza a bad thing? Is the walling off of the West Bank a bad thing? Those are useful points to talk about -- arguing over which "hooked-nose Semite" (your words) should have title to this or that clapped out rocky hillside seems a waste of time and energy. It is exactly that kind of sterile, emotional argument that's lead to so much pain and strife in places like Bosnia, Ireland, Rwanda, Cambodia, etc. I'd also say the same applies to your repeated assertions about poor behavior by the US government during the Cold War and earlier. Where does that end? You say "El Salvador", I say "India"; you say "Philippines", I say "Rhodesia." Is that useful? I know, an odd thing to say for a historian, but the point of it all is what's important -- if there's one thing historians dislike, it is cherry-picking convenient facts for a contemporary polemical argument. I'm not accusing you of anything in particular by saying that. It is also pretty amusing for you to castigate Henry for assuming you had called him a "Jew" with your "hooked-nose" comment. So presumably were calling him an Arab then? Now that's pretty funny! So, to reprise, can you explain why you think the Bush Administrations pressure on Sharon to pull out of Gaza is a bad thing? Isn't that progress to your way of thinking? TimLFrancis, Look, we can all use the same tactic and point to the inconsistency of much of ALL of our arguments when examined from particular, critical standpoints. That is what you have done. As I have said in an earlier post on OD, we either base a statement on universally agreed facts, which happens from time to time or, more likely, we present an argument which is a combination of facts and speculation. If the latter, there is inevitably some 'cherry picking'. Tell me how it can be done otherwise. As for a 'here and now' basis for dealing with problems and eschewing history, I think that this is an impossibility. You ask how far we should go back in time and suggest that we are wasting time by doing so. Well, even the 'here and now' situation is partly a matter of interpretation. In this interpretation we use our experience and knowledge of the subject and this must involve history. We cannot divorce the consideration of anything from what has gone on before. It is our main framework. The fact that we can disagree over which elements of the past are true or appropriate, in considering the situation, does not mean that there is a better way to deal with problems. So, returning to the ’here and now’. [“Is the pullout from Gaza a bad thing? Is the walling off of the West Bank a bad thing? Those are useful points to talk about -- arguing over which "hooked-nose Semite" (your words) should have title to this or that clapped out rocky hillside seems a waste of time and energy. It is exactly that kind of sterile, emotional argument that's lead to so much pain and strife in places like Bosnia, Ireland, Rwanda, Cambodia, etc.”] Who can say whether the pullout from Gaza is a good or bad thing. The same goes for the walling off of the West Bank. The truth is that we would be speculating and without some sort of framework, based on historical events, treaties, resolutions, etc., have little to support an affirmation or denial. Which criteria should we use? The utilitarian one – what is best for the greatest number. How do we know? What may appear immediately to be best for the greatest number may turn out to be the worst option with the passage of time. [“So, to reprise, can you explain why you think the Bush Administrations pressure on Sharon to pull out of Gaza is a bad thing? Isn't that progress to your way of thinking?”] Did Bush really have much option in making some gesture to the Palestinians after the invasion of Muslim Iraq and his promise to help with the resolution of the Israel/Palestinian conflict, after all that he said about the right of the Palestinians to have their own State. The way you phrase your statement, gives one the impression that you believe this is some great act of statesmanship. I would rather say it was a very belated move on the part of the US to avoid looking hypocritical, after all its pronouncements about spreading freedom and democracy. You call it progress. I would rather wait and see what happens on the West Bank and how far Sharon goes in handing back territory illegally occupied by settlers. If all on OD were to be brutally honest they would confess that they are like players in any game, who are in an adversarial position, and their positions are based on psychological and emotional factors as much as any rational aspect. Of course, few will admit this.They prefer to believe that they are on the side of what is fair, just, and righteous. As human beings with all our failings, we will tend to return to the position we hold on a subject, because of unconscious influences and thus, to a large extent can only modify our positions and attitudes in small increments, as we learn from experience where we may be mistaken or where we concede our ignorance. I have attempted to show you that there is no golden formula and set of rules for debate, that you somehow imply by your post.

TimLFrancis on "So you think that invading Iraq has made you safer........."

TimLFrancis — Thu, 07 Jul 2005 13:12:21 +0100

> A British statesman promised Palestine as a National > Home for the Jews, but had absolutely no moral and > legal basis for doing so. It was as a result of the > defeat of the Turks that Arthur Balfour took it upon > himself to make the offer of the Arabs land to > Zionists who were living in Europe. Is this a just > basis? I think not. Brolly, where does this end? The endless claims and counter-claims can, of course, go back to the destruction of the Temple by the Romans. Is it even useful to argue over who has a greater "claim" to the land? As an aside, there were also moves to establish Jewish "homelands" in Siberia, Dutch Surinam and Australia during the 1930-40s. The latter movement collapsed because the Australian trade unions refused to support the idea. Nice of them, don't you think? [comment aimed at GTJ] Rather than rehash the history of the Cold War -- which has everything to do with those UN resolutions -- and the failures of Arafat's PLA, why don't you actually talk about what is happening on the ground right now? Is the pullout from Gaza a bad thing? Is the walling off of the West Bank a bad thing? Those are useful points to talk about -- arguing over which "hooked-nose Semite" (your words) should have title to this or that clapped out rocky hillside seems a waste of time and energy. It is exactly that kind of sterile, emotional argument that's lead to so much pain and strife in places like Bosnia, Ireland, Rwanda, Cambodia, etc. I'd also say the same applies to your repeated assertions about poor behavior by the US government during the Cold War and earlier. Where does that end? You say "El Salvador", I say "India"; you say "Philippines", I say "Rhodesia." Is that useful? I know, an odd thing to say for a historian, but the point of it all is what's important -- if there's one thing historians dislike, it is cherry-picking convenient facts for a contemporary polemical argument. I'm not accusing you of anything in particular by saying that. It is also pretty amusing for you to castigate Henry for assuming you had called him a "Jew" with your "hooked-nose" comment. So presumably were calling him an Arab then? Now that's pretty funny! So, to reprise, can you explain why you think the Bush Administrations pressure on Sharon to pull out of Gaza is a bad thing? Isn't that progress to your way of thinking? Tim

brolly3 on "So you think that invading Iraq has made you safer........."

brolly3 — Thu, 07 Jul 2005 00:34:55 +0100

henry_hart, You NEVER answer the points raised, as you claim. I refer to the double standards of the US in relation to the Israel/Palestinian problem and you immediately accuse the Arabs of terrorism against the Israelis. Who and what do you suppose drove tens of thousands of Palestinians from their homes in 1948 and again in 1967. Who killed the Arab inhabitants of whole villages then, including women and children? Why does Israel not obey the UN Resolutions that were passed as far back as the 1960's. Why are Jews allowed the right of return, even if they were not even born in what is now called Israel and Palestinians, who were driven out and went overseas,are not allowed to return to what was their home. For those that want to read a fair appraisal of the problem and which is not the work of either Jews or Arabs, I suggest they look at what the National Catholic Reporter has to say on the subject. http://www.natcath.com/NCR_Online/archives/042701/042701p.htm A British statesman promised Palestine as a National Home for the Jews, but had absolutely no moral and legal basis for doing so. It was as a result of the defeat of the Turks that Arthur Balfour took it upon himself to make the offer of the Arabs land to Zionists who were living in Europe. Is this a just basis? I think not. For background on the subject of the Balfour Declaration, one should look at: http://www.mideastweb.org/mebalfour.htm Far from Palestine being the only place for a Jewish National Home, Uganda and Argentina were considered by the Zionists at one time. The fact that they got Israel is more to do with the guilt of the US and Britain after the Holocaust than any other justification. The Palestinians were simply disregarded. As for brutal dictators, who killed their own people, Saddam was far from the only one. The US encouraged right wing militias and murder squads throughout the 1960 - 1980's in Central America. I quote a passage from History of Guatemala's Death Squads by Robert Parry: "This is not only because we have concluded we (the US)cannot do anything about it, for we never really tried. Rather we suspected that maybe it is a good tactic, and that as long as Communists are being killed it is alright. Murder, torture and mutilation are alright if our side is doing it and the victims are Communists. After all hasn't man been a savage from the beginning of time so let us not be too queasy about terror. I have literally heard these arguments from our people." The above is just one example of what went on in the period I mentioned. Poor peasants and workers who wanted alleviation of their poverty were killed in their thousands with the complicity of the US with the wealthy classes, that had no interest in the deplorable condition of the underclass. Who can forget the terrible scenes of carnage among the Vietnamese people as a result of American bombing. Who can forget the horrific picture of the little girl on fire, running away from the Napalm that had caused her to burn. Is this not terrorism waged by the American people on innocent civilians. Why henry_hart, do you not feel that many of your countrymen should not, to use the popluar phrase, 'be brought to justice' for these crimes against humanity. It's not too late. You are Totally inconsistent. Yes, Saddam was a murderous bastard but then so were your own people. I notice that the man responsible for the killing of three civil rights workers in the 1960's has just been convivted of the crime, over forty years later. Well why should this man, who only urged the killing of just three people be tried and the political leaders whose decisions killed and maimed hundreds of thousands, get away with it. I simply do not understand your ability to seperate and exonerate the killing of innocent people by some and to condemn others. To label some 'terrorists' and use some pretext of defending freedom to acquit others. The proverbial man from Mars would justifiably think you are mad as well as bad. You advance the most specious of arguments and then, when they find no favour, you employ sarcasm and allege stupidity on the part of others. You sidestep the points THAT YOU CANNOT ANSWER, and then accuse others of doing this. In plain English, you are a fraud. Oh, the remark about your hooked nose. Well, for a man that has travelled, you don't seem to have noticed that many Arabs, particularly Saudis, have hooked noses. Funny you sould think that I thought you were a Jew. Just goes to show that your mind travels on railway lines. Message was edited by: brolly3

henry_hart_1 on "So you think that invading Iraq has made you safer........."

henry_hart_1 — Wed, 06 Jul 2005 23:11:37 +0100

You won't bother to comment, chumbolly, because you cannot. How did I avoid your "points"? I answered every one. Believe me, it is not difficult. And because you cannot respond with anything other than the usual lies and/or distortions, you instead have to resort to your typical stuttering, puling inanities. Interesting about the "hooked nose" comment, though. Is this a bit of your famous anti-Semitism peeking through? I would count myself fortunate to be one of such a stalwart people, but alas, I can only claim Irish Catholic -- and a diluted (and deluded, perhaps, if you are an example of the average Brit) bit of English blood. Please, try to keep your prejudices in check. HH

brolly3 on "So you think that invading Iraq has made you safer........."

brolly3 — Wed, 06 Jul 2005 15:52:48 +0100

henry_hart, I won't bother to comment on your nonsensical diatribe. Your wilful avoidance of the points raised, in favour of repeating your hackneyed and supremely one sides views and prejudices, typify everything you post As for who is the most stupid of the contributors on OD, I will leave that to others to judge but from what I can see you have no fan club except for the dim witted Ttrryosborn and the failed novelist fdbjr. I too can indulge in a stream of phrases to describe your obtuseness and inability to see beyond your hooked nose but what purpose will it serve. Message was edited by: brolly3

henry_hart_1 on "So you think that invading Iraq has made you safer........."

henry_hart_1 — Wed, 06 Jul 2005 04:03:12 +0100

What double standards are you talking about, bumbershoot? We have supported Israel -- the Mideast's only democracy -- since its inception. And we have denounced Palestinian terror tactics since their inception. Iraq had no terrorists before the U.S. invaded, huh? I'd call a guy who tortured hundreds of thousands of his own people, gassed civilians to death and started two wars that killed millions a megaterrorist. But then, you prefer Saddam, I keep forgetting. Lots of innocent civilians? How many, exactly? If you say "hundreds of thousands" ... so sorry, terror apologist. Civilians have been killed, certainly. But unintentionally -- as opposed to Saddam and the current batch of Baathist holdouts and foreign terrorists. Brolly, you really ought not label anyone else stupid. You've cornered that particular market, bought all the franchises, collected all the memorabilia and are wearing the "I'm With Stupid" T-shirt with the arrow pointing up. You're the dimmest bulb in this particular OD box ... and that's saying something. HH

brolly3 on "So you think that invading Iraq has made you safer........."

brolly3 — Wed, 06 Jul 2005 02:02:53 +0100

henry_hart, ["Good point, Brolly. I am not at all sure that another 9/11-type attack will not occur. Best, then, to continue to pursue the terrorists, track them down, cut off their money, capture and kill them. Thanks for the reaffirmation".] Best, then to continue to provoke them by double standards on Israel/Palestinian conflict, occupation of a country which had no terrorists before the US invaded, and killing lots of innocent civilians which will make thier relatives want to square the account with Americans, even if it takes them years to do so. Yes, you have reaffirmed the stupidity of the policy you support.

henry_hart_1 on "So you think that invading Iraq has made you safer........."

henry_hart_1 — Wed, 06 Jul 2005 01:52:05 +0100

Good point, Brolly. I am not at all sure that another 9/11-type attack will not occur. Best, then, to continue to pursue the terrorists, track them down, cut off their money, capture and kill them. Thanks for the reaffirmation. HH

brolly3 on "So you think that invading Iraq has made you safer........."

brolly3 — Wed, 06 Jul 2005 01:43:24 +0100

henry_hart, ["Yes, and thanks for posting the proof, Neofraud. None of those attacks occurred on American soil. But then, you're not American, are you, so you don't feel safer. Too bad ..."] Another thoughtless comment from you. If other countries are receiving terrorist attacks as a result of US policy, then why should any of them assist the US. Too attract even more terrorist attacks? It is likely that the Madrid bombing related to Spain's contribution of troops to the coalition forces, which was subsequently withdrawn. France and Germany did not join it and have remained free of terrorist incidents. I think that you are taking too much for granted. 9/11 came out of the blue. Are you so sure that the US is free for all time of a repeat on an even larger scale.

henry_hart_1 on "So you think that invading Iraq has made you safer........."

henry_hart_1 — Wed, 06 Jul 2005 00:18:13 +0100

Yes, and thanks for posting the proof, Neofraud. None of those attacks occurred on American soil. But then, you're not American, are you, so you don't feel safer. Too bad ...

Neocynic on "So you think that invading Iraq has made you safer........."

Neocynic — Tue, 05 Jul 2005 23:29:21 +0100

America Safer Since 9/11? WASHINGTON (AP) - There were nearly 3,200 terrorist attacks worldwide last year, a federal counterterrorism center said Tuesday, using a broader definition that increased fivefold the number of attacks the agency had been counting. http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGB3CLTMSAE.html

brolly3 on "So you think that invading Iraq has made you safer........."

brolly3 — Tue, 05 Jul 2005 22:15:23 +0100

I am posting an article that is from the current issue of 'The American Conservative'. It is very much in line with the view expressed earlier that the Bush administration is lost in its own fantasy world. I wonder whether the 'usual' suspects will accuse an American Conservative of being anti-American. "Phantom Menace by William Pfaff The Washington agencies of national security display a distressing detachment from the realities of the American situation in the Middle East. The Army, its Reserve, and the Marine Corps are overcommitted, with deteriorating morale. The volunteer military cannot find the recruits it needs. Conscription is politically unthinkable but could become the only alternative.In these circumstances, the Defense Department, which has been unable to supply body and vehicle armor in adequate quantities, is preoccupied with new nuclear weapons and space wars. It wants vast new expenditures on projects with no relevance to present realities—new and “more usable” nuclear weapons, including earth-penetrating “bunker busters.” The need is highly debatable, and the political costs of developing new nuclear weapons enormous. The Air Force wants a national-security directive to “establish and maintain space superiority,” a project on which it seems already to have spent billions, and on which it wants to spend more, up to an estimated trillion dollars (and beyond, as experience of such estimates suggests). Quite beyond the project’s feasibility, cost, foreign-policy implications, and likelihood to inspire countermeasures, it is another demand for a military capability irrelevant to the present and realistically foreseeable future security needs of the country. On May 9, a lost light plane entering Washington airspace produced a panicked evacuation of Congress, the White House, and most of the rest of official Washington. We are urged to control outer space, but one errant light plane terrorizes our nation’s capital. The one is costly fantasy. The other is reality. A new Bureau of Reconstruction and Stabilization in the State Department is charged with organizing the reconstruction of countries where the United States has deemed it necessary to intervene in order to make them into market democracies. The bureau has 25 countries under surveillance as possible candidates for Defense Department deconstruction and State Department reconstruction. The bureau’s director is recruiting “rapid-reaction forces” of official, nongovernmental, and corporate business specialists. He hopes to develop the capacity for three full-scale, simultaneous reconstruction operations in different countries. He told a recent conference on this subject (according to Naomi Klein in The Nation) that some of these American corporations will be given “pre-completed” contracts for reconstruction work in countries currently unaware that they are candidates for destruction/reconstruction. Getting the paperwork done beforehand, he said, could “cut off three to six months in your response time.” This occurs at the same time American military forces still are unable to pacify Iraq or Afghanistan, agricultural societies of less than 25 million people each, both largely in ruins. The billions Washington already has spent on reconstruction have yet to produce reliable electric power, clean water, or a functioning sewer system in Baghdad itself. The creation of an official capability for reconstructing 25 countries, at a time when anonymous senior Army officers are quoted as saying that the United States could be defeated in Iraq, is the most egregious Washington example of a pathological disconnection from reality. However, it is a logical bureaucratic response to the announced administration intention to overturn tyrants and spread liberty throughout the world. The United States suffers a hypertrophy of irrelevant power in a policy context of unrealizable ambitions and unacknowledged or morbidly denied failures: in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in the War on Terror, where the Taliban fight to return in Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden and the Mullah Omar remain at large. One is inclined to dismiss all this as product of institutional delusion or bureaucratic make-work. However, it responds to the expressed interests of the president. As one of his associates said, “we make reality.” This was in response to a question about realism. The remark unknowingly echoed one of Hannah Arendt’s acute observations about totalitarianism. One of the most significant aspects of the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century was that they “made reality” out of fictions. They were based on ideological fantasies that were false, but these fantasies were made into the reality upon which national policy was based. They thus came catastrophically true—until their inner falsehood brought disaster. If the machinery of American government is put to work on the premises that the nation faces new wars, new dangers that will require the use of new nuclear weapons, and faces threats from space that it must pre-emptively counter with weapons that pose radical new threats to other nations, then “realities” will be created that foster disorder and war. Others will not like this falsified American version of truth. In the long run, Americans might not like it either". Message was edited by: brolly3

brolly3 on "So you think that invading Iraq has made you safer........."

brolly3 — Tue, 05 Jul 2005 15:29:41 +0100

I copy a relevant and significant posting to The Democratic Party website and Ttrryosborn in response does not attempt to deal with the views put forward but merely engages in his usual SPLUTTER,SPLUTTER,SPLUTTER. That's just about as far as he can travel in terms of sensible comment!

Ttrryosborn on "So you think that invading Iraq has made you safer........."

Ttrryosborn — Tue, 05 Jul 2005 05:30:49 +0100

brolly3, Sorry to see that you have run out of follies of your own. You're borrowing them from the democratic party now? In addition to "alledged" claims and "speculating" we can add "partisan" to your wild ideas. this is not suprising from someone who wants to see "the eviction of the US, no matter how long it takes, from the Mideast." So much for balanced.

So you think that invading Iraq has made you safer.........,

brolly3 — Tue, 05 Jul 2005 01:20:10 +0100

I have copied a posting to 'The Democratic Pary' website, as I think that it makes a trenchant comment on the oft repeated assertion by the Bush supporters on OD, that the invasion of Iraq had made the US (and the world) a safer place. I share some of the views expressed, if not all of them. "Iraq, a Diversion and Training Ground for Bin Ladens Goal Pakistans Nuclear weapons After 9/11, we went into Afghanistan with the intention of destroying terrorism. We should have sent the 250 thousand troops there, instead of Iraq, and totally crushed Al Qaeda. This would have cut off communication, support and financial aide to the terror cells around the world. One must remember that we had virtually the entire world on our side at that time. The terror cells would have withered on the vine or a few last terror attacks may have occurred. There would have been no morphing of the organization into what it has become today. Read the rest of this post...