Originally posted by SLY
...No body wants Saddam to stay in power , everybody knows how bad is he (to his own people more than anybody else)...
That there is my basis for being against Bush,in particlual,and America,generally(coz I feel that if the majority of ordinary Americans do not want this war,then it shouldn't happen,otherwise you've all been crapping us about democracy and stuff);
During the cold war,America proped up( I suspect they even set up)regimes(for eg in Africa,Zaire,under Mobutu Seseseko)that engaged in the very activities that Saddam is engaged in(the human rights abuses and all that)that would constitute moral/humanitarian ground for his removal.Mobutu killed political opponents,he looted his nations wealth,and except perhaps for the WMD things,was not that much different from Saddam.
This goes to show that what mattered to America then(maybe even now-if you want to argue this point,what you're really telling me is that Americans don't influencee how their govt. behaves)was their economic interest(conrol is usually a first step in this direction.Most wars are ultimately over resource control,resource here being a rather broad term).It just so happens that they want to remove Saddam for their own selfish reasons(while the ordinary Iraqis,and the rest of us "humanitarians",want him out,would wish him out,really,because he is a dictator-a bad one at that).Realise here that wishing Iraqis had a good govt. is one thing.Wanting to send your army there for that reason is another thing.
America is being the the 21st century's answer to the British Empire of the 19th/20th centuries.That empire used it's military and econmic might(and aren't these two related)to wreck havoc on pretty much the rest of the world(the fact that technology went to places the empire went doesn't appease me,it was too heavy a pricee to pay for technology and "development").
I've seen it said that even Osama himself was a onetime ally of the US(even Saddam?).
America,in it's efforts to be global everything-cop,scientist,peacekeeper-is doing the same things the above mentioned empire do.They help make Osama.Then they somehow differ on issues.And Osama does what he did(sept. 11,the embassy bombings here in kenya and tanzania,etc,etd,ete).Who's to blame?If the question of whether Osama would be what he is if it wasn't for America is valid,then isn't it also valid that it's America to blame for these things?And if my reason has any bit of validity in it,and I'm an ordinary kenyan who has no intention of turning "radical"(radical here is a loose term,the US has shown that),is it any surprise that "radicals" are emerging,and we got all these suicide bombings and all that sh!t going on?
I'll just have to stop coz I could go on and on about these things.
The bottom line is,America has no justification.All the arguments they are raising are crap.
I think psychologists would tell us that the "conquer" reaction to danger is hard wired in the human thinking.But you see,we human beings are at the top of all organisms.We've more or less conquered them(don't get started about AIDS,I know it.I lost my mom to it).But when the threat,apparent or otherwise,is from a felow(read equal,at least in theory) human being,the way to go is trust.
Which is why you don't tie your wife or girlfriend to the bed and lock her up so that she doesn't engage in adulterous activities.You trust she doesn't.You've reached an agreement,an understanding.Because,she,like you,is a human being.But you lock up your dog so it doesn't stray.Because,it,unlike you,is not a human being.You rule it.But you don't rule you wife.Or kids.Or neighbours.Or the local county.Or you province,or your nation.The people in it reach an agrreement,an undeerstaning.
And so should nations.And nations do reach undedrstanings.Which is how come America isn't fighting Canada.Or Mexico.Who they once fought with,over Texas I think.
But instead of reaching an understanding,you want to beast my arse off coz you got biceps the size of my upper thighs.You don't respect me as a person.Seen how often it's possible to avoid a possible bar brawl by simply working things out?That's how nations handle stuff,and Palestine is always killing Israel,and vice versa.catholics in Ireland are killing protestants,and vicec versa.Why can't they just ****ing stop???
The conquer reaction.
So Saddam has WMD?And is going to kill the rest of us?And so we topple,maybe even kill him?
Well,even America has nuclear stockpiles.And if she doesn't have bio weapons,she has the capacity to produce them.For all I know,America can probably produuce ten times more small pox than Saddam has in a month if the need was there.You have the scientists(how many Nobels has America won?) and facilities(Universities,research centres,the works) and the money(wasn't Clinton's govt, running up budget
surpluses :eek: in the billions of dollars?).
If the question is not about whether a nation has the ability but rather the intent,then even Bush himself would nuke anyone if he "felt" he had reason.Hiroshima and Nagasaki are evidence of this.
War is not an option.Under whatever circumstances.
You name a single where the people involved gained,overall.There is none.So you wonder why people keep doing it.
[Edited by kingdavid on 01-27-2003 at 03:37 AM]
