From: MaxPlumm@aol.com
Date: Sat Feb 01 2003 - 10:18:03 MST
John Grigg wrote:
>
> Seriously, it is the indirect attack done through third parties in the form
of terrorism which worries us about Iraq. We created this Frankenstein
monster and now we must go kill it.
>
To which Samantha replied:
"There is no good proof to date that Iraq is behind terrorism to
any significant extent. So that can't be a serious supported
reason for the proposed action. The thing about terrorism is
that it can come from most any corner with sufficient rage and
suprisingly little financing. It doesn't require a Saddam.
Getting rid of him will do nothing to decrease terrorism. Most
likely it will increase it."
And this assertion is based on what? Where are the massive Al Qaeda assaults
that were supposed to follow Mullah Omar's ouster in Afghanistan? Where are
all the thousands upon thousands of casualties the US was supposed to suffer
in removing the Taliban? Where are all the thousands upon thousands of
casualties that the US was supposed to suffer in the Gulf War? Where's the
prosperity and better quality of life the Communists were supposed to bring
to Vietnam? As usual you are practicing your typical fear mongering.
> It's just very sad that several thousand U.S. troops may die in house to
house fighting in Baghdad, but that's what they signed up for. I'm certain an
oil company CEO would say that to his confidantes as they watch on the news
the bodybags come home.
>
"It is more than just very sad. It is morally reprehensible in
the extreme that we would waste the lives of those sworn to the
defense of the US in a senseless and unjustified aggression of
this kind. It is senseless that their lives would be wasted
putting ourselves and the world more at risk and increasing the
ill will towards us. This is NOT what they signed up to do."
Obviously the leadership of the United States, the UK, Spain et al would
differ on your notion of unjustified. But worse yet, as usual, your practice
of moral relativism is absolutely ridiculous. I have never once heard you
refer to "Saddam's aggression", "North Vietnamese aggression", or even
"Communist aggression". But, if there is any opportunity for you to paint the
United States as the second- coming of the Soviets, you jump at it. Our men
and women in the military also did not sign up for the cowering in the sand
appeasement offered by Bush's predecessor in regard to the North Koreans, who
now seem to be a more palatable target for many on the left.
> I think there MAY be very positive effects to the U.S. led toppling of
Saddam's regime. When our forces have vanquished his large middle eastern
nation and are occupying it, the entire region will once and for all see our
now unrivaled power to crush our foes is to be dearly respected. Of course
heavyhitters like Russia and China (even North Korea or "ally" Pakistan) are
still off the list since we would be biting off more then we could chew. lol
>
"So you believe that "our unrivaled power to crush our foes" is
what will draw the Middle East into freedom and democracy?
Really? Isn't it more likely to increasingly lead to the US and
all it stands for being hated as the worst sort of tyranny? Are
we reduced to "we will crush you if you resist"?"
Amazing. What brought Germany to freedom and democracy? What kept South Korea
from falling into a Communist sponsored nightmare in 1950? What kept all of
Europe from falling under the boot heel of Nazism? Oh, but I suppose our
attempts to resist Nazi and Soviet imperialism have already made us "the
worst sort of tyranny."
>I agree with Mez that the real potential problem is China. They have all the
raw materials to over the next several decades grow into a serious regional
if not global bully. I just hope they prove better than that.
>
"But I thought you just praised being a global bully above, at
least when we do it. Apparently it is just fine and to be
applauded that we aren't "better than that"."
All hail the queen of moral relativism. Yet again, without batting an
eyelash, Samantha directly compares the foreign policy record of the United
States to a (would-be) expansionist Communist state. Her ridiculous cries of
"Resist us and we will crush you" are insulting at best and sickening at
worst. Yes, the US has a long history of slaughtering innocents, just like
the Prague Spring and Hungary circa 1958. Just like the Cultural Revolution.
Just like Pol Pot's genocide. Just like Ho Chi Minh's land reform…I know, all
of these pale in comparison to the four people that were killed at Kent
State.
"Peace."
Look what it did for Indochina.
Max Plumm
Mao Zedong: Why have the Americans not made a fuss about the fact that more
than 100,000 Chinese troops help you building railways, roads and airports
although they knew about it?
Pham Van Dong: Of course, they are afraid.
Mao Zedong: They should have made a fuss about it. Also, their estimate of
the number of Chinese troops in Vietnam is less than the real number."
September 23, 1968, conversation between PRC Chairman Mao Zedong and North
Vietnamese premier Pham Van Dong.
(Taken from "Conversations between Chinese and Foreign Leaders on the Wars in
Indochina, 1964-1977, p. 86)
"Don't talk to me about socialism. What we have, we hold."
-USSR General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev to Czechoslovakian
Communist Party Secretary Alexander Dubcek following Dubcek's attempted
reforms. Brezhnev would order an invasion of Czechoslovakia of 500,000
communist troops to crush dissent shortly after this conversation in August
1968.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:09 MST