a moral dilemma

Originally posted by Raskolnikov

Originally posted by Dejan Sajinovic
Duds, this thread must be the biggest in the history of guitar tricks.

Sorry. My bad.

No need to apologize, Rask.

I bow to our own Grizzled Veteran, and all participants here, in regcognition of an exemplary display of calm, rational, and logical discussion of a topic that carries a lot of emotional weight.

This kind of debate shows a lot about why this Forum is the best I've ever taken part in. Especially compared to other guitar sites!

Originally posted by Azrael
Our hope for the future is clear understanding,
but you're still afraid that the Martians are landing.
The 'Reds' neath our beds appear far more attractive
than waking up dead in the radioactive debris....

Please don't limit yourself to thinking that you can only choose between death and communism. I think the history of the 20th century has shown them to be pretty much the same thing.

And something for our European friends to consider... while there has been a lot of History written about the death and misery caused by wars an every continent, an overlooked detail is the fact that no democratic government has ever made war against another democratic government. [u]None[/u]. [u]Not Ever[/u].

Even the war of 1812, (the [u]only[/u] one the US has lost) during which our combined Canadian and British forces set fire to Washington. (That's how the White house got it's name by the way. It was painted to cover the fire damage). The combatants were a democratic Republic (USA) at war with a Monarchy (UK), and it's colony (Canada).

The plain fact is, in a democracy, the decisions are made by groups of people, so one 'hot-head' is unable to make things get out of hand. When two democracies disagree, there is zero chance that the situation will be allowed to lead to warfare.

I hear, read, and see rubbish about George Bush being some kind of megalomaniacal fiend bent on World Domination. Sadly, a lot of this crap comes from the countries of Europe that seem to have conveniently forgotten that they owe their present-day freedom and economic prosperity, in large part, to the sacrifices made on their behalf by America. The pravailing attitude is that it is best to snipe at the 'rude Americans' while positioning oneself to derive any benefits that might derive from the coming conflict. Never mind that this gives aid and comfort to a proven monster. I smell oportunistic cowardice on a national scale!

As far as Austria her is concerned, most of the rebuilt work after WW2 was done by austrians and czech people. Americans stood there watching and spreading chewing gum and oranges. very cool indeed - and btw - the main reason why WW2 turned out the way it did was because the germans were defeated in russia - not because america was the big saviour - they did just the nazi-cleanup work afterwards. America entered the war because of pearl habour and because italy and germany declared war against america - not because they wanted to save europe.

Originally posted by Azrael
... and btw - the main reason why WW2 turned out the way it did was because the germans were defeated in russia - not because america was the big saviour - they did just the nazi-cleanup work afterwards. America entered the war because of pearl habour and because italy and germany declared war against america - not because they wanted to save europe.

As I pointed out (back on page 10), you have it half right. I agree, America's biggest wartime effort was directed towards the Pacific theatre, against Japan. It was their post-war contribution that made the big difference in Europe. And the Marshall Plan brought a lot more to Europe than chewing gum and oranges. Compare that to the resulting enslavement of most of Eastern Europe under the hell imposed by the 'liberating' forces of Stalin's Russia!

well - this part of austria here was under russian influence after WW2 and my grandmother told me that they where by far not as bad as everyone thinks.

but other than that:

the major point in this discussion - and noone can hold anything against this - is, that every war that america lead (i am not saying that this is different in wars that a different nation started) was about either oil or money/economy in general. and to make it look better they said it was all for the sake of humanity. I absolutely agree with sly that NO nation has the right to interfere with the interrior deals of a different nation. This reminds me somehow of that major-rule they had in startrek. The point is, every time someone tried to "make things better" it resulted in a big bloodshed. Christians wanted to bring "god" to the godless - bloodshed. the first americans wanted to make america a better place to live - bloodshed. the list is endless.

Iraq has problems - fine. but then iraqi people have to learn to stand up and fight against the opression. no dictator is invincible. we alle are dáccord that democracy is one of the best, but you cannot force it uopn every nation - they have to learn it on their own - as hard as it may sound.

Originally posted by Azrael
well - this part of austria here was under russian influence after WW2 and my grandmother told me that they where by far not as bad as everyone thinks.

I love dudes who have straight unspun first hand info like that.
I mean,unlike spinsters(?!?)like me,Azrael's grandma wouldn't make up stuff now,would she?

Iraq has problems - fine. but then iraqi people have to learn to stand up and fight against the opression. no dictator is invincible. we alle are dáccord that democracy is one of the best, but you cannot force it uopn every nation - they have to learn it on their own - as hard as it may sound.

HALLELUJAH!!!
Did you guys see how we did our elections?
That was the quintesential example of a nation saying no to a leader.
Look it up on the web.

Originally posted by kingdavid
... Did you guys see how we did our elections?
That was the quintesential example of a nation saying no to a leader...

Credit where it's due. I will admit that even here in Canada, we are suffering under a broken Federal political system that has become a sad, perverted travesty, bearing only passing resemblance to democracy.

Originally posted by SLY
...My point was no matter how bad & evil is a regiem ruling a country , you don't have the moral right to attack unless they attack you first...

Exactly.
This is the point that Rask,Lord,Bush and the others are missing.
Rask has mentioned the various atrocities that Saddam has commited.Atrocities that demand his removal.By Bush and his "allies"(aside:I loved that "allies" cartoon).
Now,your Geroge War Bush called our former president,and I quote,something I saw on CNN,"...a good and strong leader of Kenya...".
Bush thinks Moi was a "good and strong leader".
This is what he doesn't know,or chooses to ignore coz there's no benefit for him to do otherwise:
Any crime against humanity you can mention has beed commited by this man in his 24 yr rule.
Political assassination.
Torture of political opponents.
Detentions without trial.
Hangings.
Mega large scale economic sabotage.
And if it wasn't for the people of Kenya,he wanted to continue ruling thro' a puppet.
And this man,according to one George War Bush,is a "good and strong leader".
I wonder what dictionary they use in the White House.
And according to that same George,a man who has commited these same acts(albeit on a grander scale:don't argue this point.Is that Washington(?) sniper any better than Charlie Manson?)needs to be removed from power.
It's despicable,coming from Bush.
And when I talk about Kenya,I live there.I have lived there all my life.I'm 24 next Monday.I know exactly wtf I'm talking about.
Would any of you guys say that the Saudi govt. is a model of demaocracy and freedom and justice for all and sundry in that country?
But Rask said that America's relationship with the saudis is a business one.So as long the "business" is ok,to quote mettalica,"Nothing else matters"?
Is the Saudi model what you want to install in Iraq?I mean,you're doing business with them,and you wouldn't do business with a "bad"(these words are relative.Just ask Bush) regime,now,would you?
Rask,if sovereign nations go about removing the regimes in other sovereign nations that they consider "bad"(:eek: )who will decide who removes what regime when?And what criteria will be applied?And to what extent will that criteria be used?And how will that criteria be formulated?By who?
It's one thing for you to rescue,at a given instace,your neighbour from his wife battering husband.This is very different.These are nations we are talking about.You see,couples,everyone,is under their domestic laws.
How about nations?Who is America answerable to for their actions?God?The milky way supreme court?WHO??
This is a very fundamental question you're missing.

Speaking of democracy,I gather that the majority of Americans are against this war.Correct me if I'm wrong.I'm going by the premise I'm right.
Now,if Bush cannot listen to his own people,what the hell is he doing going on about "undemocratic" regimes?
Why should he be trusted to do this right?
Why should any govt.'s intention,in it's sorting out another country,be trusted?
Just how do we know?From you past?From what you tell us?
WHAT?

Originally posted by kingdavid
...Would any of you guys say that the Saudi govt. is a model of demaocracy and freedom and justice for all and sundry in that country?...Is the Saudi model what you want to install in Iraq?...

Hell, no! And as I pointed out earlier, none of the Arab counrties has good government. I also said that Saudi Arabia is a likely candidate for massive internal revolution, as part of the ripple effect from having Iraq run by democratic self-government. This whole situation really is about fighting terrorism at the source.

Originally posted by kingdavid
...Rask,if sovereign nations go about removing the regimes in other sovereign nations that they consider "bad"(:eek: )who will decide who removes what regime when?And what criteria will be applied?And to what extent will that criteria be used?And how will that criteria be formulated?By who?...

This is very much what Osama Bin Laden et al are intent on doing. These thugs are now, and have been, at war with the West in general, and the US in particular. As far as they are concerned, they are a sovereign nation, in terms of their ability to wage war, operate a treasury, enact legislation (via proxy regimes like the Taliban), and impose penalties on those who they deem to be criminals (the decadent West). The destruction of the World Trade Center, and the attempted destruction of the Pentagon and the White House, were acts of war.

Originally posted by kingdavid
...It's one thing for you to rescue,at a given instance,your neighbour from her wife battering husband. This is very different. These are nations we are talking about. You see,couples,everyone,is under their domestic laws. How about nations? Who is America answerable to for their actions? God? The milky way supreme court? WHO?? This is a very fundamental question you're missing.

I suggest you may be missing the fundamental point in this instance.

Any individual, group, community, state, or nation is only obedient to those laws by which they agree to be bound. Disobedience may be punished by those who impose laws, subject to their ability to enforce those laws. In the case of a wife-beating husband, he is only subject to the discipline imposed on him by others.

This is no less the case for sovereign nations. Those who willfully break international laws, can only be punished by other nations who are willing, and able, to enforce those laws.

Saddam Hussein has routinely, and without remorse, broken the conditons that were imposed upon him at the suspension of the Gulf War. I use the word suspension by choice here. Fighting was halted based on his agreement to abide by certain conditions. It should not come as a surprise to anyone, that the world must be prepared to resume the fight if the agreement is broken. [u]And the agreement has been broken[/u].

The reason this is seen as an American fight, is that no-one else has demonstrated the moral clarity, or the intestinal fortitude, (and I count my own detestibly-led country among the feeble and/or unwilling), to stand up and say "[u]No more[/u]!"

Originally posted by kingdavid
Speaking of democracy,I gather that the majority of Americans are against this war.Correct me if I'm wrong.I'm going by the premise I'm right.
Now,if Bush cannot listen to his own people,what the hell is he doing going on about "undemocratic" regimes?
Why should he be trusted to do this right?
Why should any govt.'s intention,in it's sorting out another country,be trusted?
Just how do we know?From you past?From what you tell us?
WHAT?

[u]All[/u] forms of government provide some degree of separation between the will of the people and the actions of their government. What makes democracy special, is that it minimises this separation. It does not totally eliminate it. It also provides some protection from 'Tyrany by the Majority', whereby minorities would be trampelled by an unrestrained majority. One of the true tests of any form of government is an examination of how it treats unpopular elements of society.

Most protesters voice opinions that are disagreed with by others. In a democracy, there is an identified, supported, right to express opinions, whether those opinions are popular or not. Such concepts require a delicate balance to be applied in order to set limits on individual rights. Your right to shake your fist at me, ends where my nose begins.

By contrast, consider how much popular opinion in Iraq is opposed to Saddam Hussein? How much of that popular sentiment is able to find public expression? Contrary to heart-felt wishes that the Iraqi people have only to 'stand up for themselves', it is a sad fact, that ruthless dictators like Saddam Hussein do not fall to popular uprisings.

Left undisturbed, Iraq will cintinue to suffer cruelly under the current regime until Saddam dies. And then he would be succeeded by more of the same. The only hope for the Iraqi people would be that the next dictator, or maybe the one after that, would be less skilled/ruthless in imposing his will on the nation. Then, and only then, would there be some possibility of overthrow by a popular uprising of the people.

As Raskolvikov has said, to sit idly by, and do nothing, is to aid this criminal in his subjugaton of his people. That amounts to murder by indifference.

Originally posted by Azrael
As far as Austria her is concerned, most of the rebuilt work after WW2 was done by austrians and czech people. Americans stood there watching and spreading chewing gum and oranges. very cool indeed - and btw - the main reason why WW2 turned out the way it did was because the germans were defeated in russia - not because america was the big saviour - they did just the nazi-cleanup work afterwards. America entered the war because of pearl habour and because italy and germany declared war against america - not because they wanted to save europe.

Yes, that's why we sent England (read: "gave England" since the last time I checked England still hasn't payed the United States back for the aid sent durring WWII) food, ammunition, medicine, equipment, aircraft, fuel, and even soldiers at our own financial expense, and the expense of hundreds of US freighter ships and thousands of American lives (Canada can claim some credit here too) before America actually entered the war.
America is largely responsible for making sure that England won the Batttle of Britain and for keeping two fronts open against the Nazis. If England had fell there would have been NO possibility of invading France and the Nazis would have been able to divert 100% of their attention towards Russia. And that's just in Europe, including the African theater would only compound that observation.

Without the benefit of American industry, money and eventually blood, World War II would have had a VERY different outcome.

Originally posted by Azrael
well - this part of austria here was under russian influence after WW2 and my grandmother told me that they where by far not as bad as everyone thinks.

Tell that to eleven million people who didn't keep their mouths shut.

the major point in this discussion - and noone can hold anything against this - is, that every war that america lead (i am not saying that this is different in wars that a different nation started) was about either oil or money/economy in general. and to make it look better they said it was all for the sake of humanity. I absolutely agree with sly that NO nation has the right to interfere with the interrior deals of a different nation. This reminds me somehow of that major-rule they had in startrek.

First, Kuwait reaps the profits of Kuwaiti oil (and is a member of OPEC if my memory serves correctly), and OPEC is responsible for American individuals and industry paying much higher prices for oil than is neccessary and that hurts the US economy. Also, the US troops stationed in the region since the Gulf War cost the Federal Government a great deal of money and contribute huge sums to our tax burden. The "war for the US economy" argument is so full of holes, it's rediculous.
Second, in Star Trek, the "Prime Directive" regards developing worlds. Once a civilization has invented inter-stellar travel, the Prime Directive doesn't apply. Yes, I'm a geek.

Iraq has problems - fine. but then iraqi people have to learn to stand up and fight against the opression. no dictator is invincible. we alle are dáccord that democracy is one of the best, but you cannot force it uopn every nation - they have to learn it on their own - as hard as it may sound.

That sounds like the "States Rights" argument that the Southern states used to pull before the US Civil War. It's a line of bull-pucky formulated to justify inaction in the face of something incredibly wrong that we ALL share a responsibility to resist.

I've said it before, I'll say it again; "out of sight, out of mind."
And 45,000 more Iraqis will pay the price if nothing is done this year.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov

Originally posted by Azrael
well - this part of austria here was under russian influence after WW2 and my grandmother told me that they where by far not as bad as everyone thinks.

Tell that to eleven million people who didn't keep their mouths shut...

30 MILLION died of starvation just in the Ukraine, during Stalin's impositon of collective farming!

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
Iraq invaded Kuwait. The Iraqi army was driven out by an international coalition and ordered by the international community to disarm and [u]PROVE[/u] that it has disarmed. After OVER A DECADE LATER Saddam has proven NOTHING other than that he's still playing games with the arms inspectors.

Thats right ... If you removed Saddam a decade ago , no one would have opposed you cuz it was going to be a reaction to the Kuwait invasion.

But now after a decade , the point of removing Saddam from power has lost its good reasons ... Every thing is ok in Kuwait , Inspectors never found any hidden WMD in Iraq , Saddam and his regiem are contained by very strict sanctions & inspections that would never give him a chance to develope or manufacture WMDs.

Now you're worried about the poor Iraqies who suffer from the sanctions.
There are several ways to correct life in Iraq while keeping Saddam contained by the inspections ... The U.S. just don't want to see them.

Dude , it realy obvious that the U.S. is realy determined to invade Iraq regardless of the excuses , legality , expenses , consequences , casualities , oppositions , blah blah blah , etc. of such a war .

Obviously the possibility of 'finishing the job' was dicussed, and rejected, by the US. The Gulf War was fought by a coalition of nations, [u]under a UN mandate that did not authorise removing Saddam Hussein from power[/u].

As Rask has pointed out, the Americans get spit on if they don't act, and they get sh!t on if they do. I wouldn't blame them a bit if they decided to 'go it alone' and simply flattened Bhagdad, with or without UN approval.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov

Originally posted by Azrael
well - this part of austria here was under russian influence after WW2 and my grandmother told me that they where by far not as bad as everyone thinks.

Tell that to eleven million people who didn't keep their mouths shut.

i think you´ve missed the context here - i was refering to the russian sildiers that where stationed here AFTER WW2 - it was not about what they did DURING the war - thats a different story.

erm, maybe this's become a bit random (the boat that was my context has sailed..) but as for the moral dilemma of not serving your country in a war, well for me it's simple. I count myself as a citizen of the world, I have no national pride. I know an Iraqi, he's a very English Iraqi (English parents etc)and he's a really decent bloke. Nationality really means **** all to me, real ideas might be worth dying for but some nationalistic bigatry based on tribalism that evolved to perpuate our selfish genes ought to be discarded, like it's time to ditch some third world debt and stop de-regulating industry so it can **** workers and the environment alike. If they introduce conscription you won't see me for dust. I think it's a breach of fundamental human rights to expect people to risk dieing horribly and sacrificing their innocence by killing strangers for political ends that they probably are not being told the truth about.
Just my opinion, I know it's not definitive!

again - AMEN! i´m totally with you

Originally posted by Azrael

Originally posted by Raskolnikov

Originally posted by Azrael
well - this part of austria here was under russian influence after WW2 and my grandmother told me that they where by far not as bad as everyone thinks.

Tell that to eleven million people who didn't keep their mouths shut.

i think you´ve missed the context here - i was refering to the russian sildiers that where stationed here AFTER WW2 - it was not about what they did DURING the war - thats a different story.

I was referring to a massacer of Russian Jews by Stalin that was completely unrelated to the war. In fact, I'm pretty sure it was after the war.

Remember that MiG 29 pilot who defected to Turkey in his fighter sometime in the 80s? He wrote a book called "Fulcrum," you should read it. He saw a lot of things your grandmother didn't.