Re: American Cowards
- From: hawat.thufir@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: 28 Oct 2005 02:22:16 -0700
Acharya wrote:
...
> The right to live is the most basic of universal human rights.
> Then there is the right to education, a decent livelihood, and a
> moral government. These are also called inalienable rights.
No doubt they're called inalienable rights, but they're not universal.
Nor is the right to live a universal right. Pardon, but it's a truism
of anthropology that for any value there's going to a culture out there
that rejects that value. Just because the UN says that the "right to
live" is a universal human right (and I'm not so sure that it does)
that doesn't make it so. Just because the Declaration of the US says
____ doesn't make it fact, sorry. Those are just assertions. There
are other cultures with other values out there.
...
> The US is a pluralistic constitutional democracy based on
> inalienable human rights. A government of the people, by the
> people and for the people.
Again with the inalienable human rights. There's no such thing. The
US, like every other country, has blood on its hands, has murdered and
oppressed its own citizenry, colonized other countries, supported
madmen and murderers, etc. Those are facts. By it's own standards and
values the US has a checkered history which should give it pause before
playing cop and deciding right and wrong in the world.
> In order for people anywhere to have
> their individual human rights, the dictators and terrorists must
> be removed.
"...I think one way for us to end up being viewed as the ugly American
is for us to go around the world saying, we do it this way, so should
you." -Bush
<http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000b.html>
Which is it? Bush can't have his cake and eat it, too. So, the US
should go around and remove dictators? How is that not playing
international cop?
...
> The US saves from having a democratic ally in a very oppressive
> area of the world. The US does not have to be the global police
> halfway around the world.
The US saves what by having a democratic ally in that part of the
world? Israel is the only democracy in the SW Asia (the Middle East)
and is a US ally. Many Muslims draw a direct connection between the
Israel-PLO conflict to the US occupation of Iraq. This is how jihad's
are sparked.
Sure, agreed, the US doesn't have to be the global police. In fact,
better that the US doesn't take on that onus.
"...if we're an arrogant nation they'll view us that way, but if we're
a humble nation they'll respect us." -Bush
<http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000b.html>
Bush said it very well. I certainly agree with Bush's statements on
that. Question, is imposing democracy on a people arrogant or humble?
Democracy, freedom if you will, is a US value, not Muslim. Many, many
Iraqi's want to form their own government their own way.
...
> You do not see the big picture. The US was attacked on its soil in 1993 and
> 1994 by a global terrorist and fascist organization called al-qaeda which
> uses materialistic and monolithic religion to enslave entire countries.
Sure, no doubt. However, Saddam was actually against Al-Qaeda.
Pardon, did Bush claim that Al-Qaeda was operating out of Iraq as a
pretext for invasion? If so, that claim is false. IIRC the reason for
invading Iraq was:
"Saddam Hussein still is a threat in the Middle East. Our coalition
against Saddam is unraveling. Sanctions are loosened. The man who may
be developing weapons of mass destruction, we don't know because
inspectors aren't in." -Bush
<http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2000c.html>
Bush's failure to enforce sanctions and inspections is evidenced by the
invasion. Had Bush succeeded with enforcing sanctions and inspections
already in place then the US, and UN, would've known for a fact that
Saddam didn't have a WMD program.
...
> You ignore that President Bush told Saddam to step down from power
> peacefully or by force. War is the result of the failure of all other
> remedies to a conflict.
Not at all. Bush knew about this problem *before* becoming President.
Bush critized Clinton, quite correctly, for allowing the situation in
Iraq to slide. Did anyone really expect Saddam to step down? Better
the devil you know...
"The best victory is when the opponent surrenders of its own accord
before there are any actual hostilities...It is best to win without
fighting."
Sun-tzu (~400 BC), The Art of War. Planning a Siege
The siege, meaning inspections and sanctions, didn't fail. Bush lost
his nerve.
The points are:
1.) Bush failed to enforce sanctions and inspections.
2.) There was never any connection between Al-Quade and Iraq.
3.) There were no WMD's in Iraq.
There's a strong case for invading Afghanistan, that's where the
Taliban and Al-Quada were. Similarly, most, if not all, of the 9/11
hijackers were Saudi Arabians. Osama is a Saudi.
The invasion of Iraq occurred in the context of 9/1l when, in fact,
there's no connection between the two.
...
> I see you have not seen or understood their new constitution.
What do you have to say about the Iraqi constitution, specifically?
-Thufir
.
- References:
- American Cowards
- From: Raktizer Omheit
- Re: American Cowards
- From: Acharya
- Re: American Cowards
- From: Acharya
- American Cowards
- Prev by Date: Re: 7 Myths About Islam
- Next by Date: Voting stats
- Previous by thread: Re: American Cowards
- Next by thread: Re: American Cowards
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
