Re: [Way off topic] the politics of ubuntu.org
I'm gonna cut some passages here to get to the most outrageous first.
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 09:39:51 -0800, Steve Lamb <grey@dmiyu.org> wrote:
> Wim De Smet wrote:
> > Calling people islamic terrorists is about the same as claiming that
> > Islam is responsible for their actions.
>
> Facts are facts. Outside of a few isolated incidents with the Irish
> where has the majority of terrorism come from in the past several decades?
> Hell, outside a few isolated Irish incidents where has *ALL* terrorism come from?
A few isolated Irish incidents? I'm sure the British will disagree
with you there, especially about the few. Off the top of my hat I can
also name the Red Brigades in Italy and there surely are others
(notably in Asia and South America)
> > It's a fact that long before Bush gained power there were already
> > groups of people (that would later make it into his government as his
> > close advisors) clamoring for the invasion of Iraq. Their intended
> > goal was "securing American intrests in the Middle East". If that's
> > not about oil, I don't know what it's about. Certainly not about the
> > good of the people.
>
> Then answer me this simple question. Where's the pipeline in
> Afghanistan? Better yet why isn't America implicated in the oil-for-food scam
> if it were all about oil? People are so quick to make rash claims of "It's
> the oil, it's the oil!" but never remember that the past several times they
> claimed it it didn't pan out.
I didn't say it was about the oil in Afghanistan. Afghanistan was
about Bin Laden and the Taliban, I can accept that though I may not
agree with it. We were talking about Iraq. It doesn't have to be
either about the oil or about the terrorists, it can be both you know.
I pray to god your president is not as single-minded as you.
>[snip absolute drivel]
> > How much this is our fault is something to be debated, but your
> > basic premise is at least wrong.
>
> Not in the slightest.
Your basic premise was that overpopulation caused famine. I said it
was not, there is plenty of capacity for food production in Africa,
it's just not being used.
>
> > Might I also point out that Bush is trying to convince people in foreign
> > countries _not_ to use a condom,
>
> No, he's not. He cut federal funding. Show me where it is our
> responsibility to subsidize the worlds condom use and I'll be right there with
> ya. Granted, he did it for the wrong reason but that's hardly "convincing
> people in foreign countries _not_ to use a condom." If people in foreign
> countries are so mindless as to care what the president of the US thinks they
> should do with their dangly bits they have far more problems than I imagine.
Again you do not have all the facts. Bush cut funding for programs
promoting condoms and other means and he increased funding for
programs promoting abstinence.
> > Ask anyone with a bit of a clue in the matter and
> > he'll tell you that the high births per couple is caused by low income
> > and opportunity, not vice versa (more people can bring in more food).
>
> Oh, I'm well aware of that. However I am also quite aware that the human
> animal is capable of overriding it's biological imperatives. Just because
> higher birth rates are associated with those factors does not mean those
> factors automatically cause births. The people in question can choose not to
> bear more children then their local food stocks can feed.
Having more children is among other things a way to ensure your
pension in those countries. If these people don't have some children,
who is going to care for them when they are old? And on an individual
basis, people don't see it the way you do. The more children they
have, the more people can help bring money and food in. This is what I
was referring to but obviously I had to spell it out.
>[snip]
>
> > There was no UN support specifically for military action.
>
> Bull. I believe it was UN resolution 687 back in 1990/91 which laid out
> what Iraq must and must not do. Either that resolution or one it references,
> both of which were still in effect, authorized the use of military force.
> Since that resolution 12-15 more (I forget the exact number) in the
> intervening decaded _reaffirmed_ that military force *by any member state* was
> authorized to uphold those resolutions.
And why then, in the first Gulf war did US troops turn back home when
they could have easily "liberated" baghdad? It was because they did
not have a mandate authorizing exactly that. Just because you read
this in them, doesn't mean it's there.
> > The reason that there never was any UN resolutions aganist actions is
> > that the US would've vetoed those anyway and nobody wants to piss off
> > the US.
>
> Uh-huh. You're telling me that France, which has no qualms about pissing
> off the US, wouldn't've set forth a motion for repremands even to get it as a
> matter of record, EVEN if it is vetoed?
yes. The US is an ally of France. You don't piss on your allies
without very good reason.
> [snip government propaganda]
> > Also, if I recall correctly the reason for invasion in Iraq was the
> > "presence" of mass destruction weapons. Where are those weapons now?
>
> That's the question, isn't it? Just because they're not here now doesn't
> mean they weren't there then. You're telling me that the entire time that
> Saddam played the bait and switch with UN inspectors (hmmm, were they getting
> kick-backs from the oil-for-food program?) by not allowing them unrestricted
> access to any facility at any time of *their* choosing means he had nothing to
> hide? You cannot conceive that in the weeks prior to coalition action in Iraq
> Saddam had absolutely no time to move said weapons out of the country like
> say, to Syria, perhaps? You're telling me that the confirmed movement of
> trucks from Iraq to Syria were nothing more than, oh, food from the
> oil-for-food program?
I'm sure the Syrians would just jump to the chance to store Saddam's
dangerous weaponry within their borders. I can conceive all these
things, but that doesn't mean they happened. I can however see how the
US government consistently manipulated evidence about WMD. And frankly
I wouldn't want to fight wars based on any belief, religious or
otherwise.
> Nevermind that the presence of WMD wasn't needed according to the cited
> UN resolution. Just the attempt to aquire them is sufficient. That has been
> confirmed with the meetings between Iraq and N. Korea. Furthermore supporting
> terrorist actions was also enough. Saddam's thousands to the families of
> Palastinian terrorists is widely known. His ties to Al Qaeda(3) have been
> confirmed time and again. The WMDs were not the only argument it is just the
> most widely cited argument because people think it is so easily refuted.
It was the reason that got most of the american people on board. It
was also the only possible justification for a pre-emptive strike. The
difference between enforcing the UN resolutions and deposing the
current government is very big. And I'm pretty sure you can't back
that Al Qaeda tie up anyway, neither could your president.
But I guess all this isn't worth arguing further so I'll leave the
last word to you...
greets,
Wim
Reply to: