Is Bimmercat ashamed........

[Bruce Barnard]

Mine is an uncomfortable position to take maybe, especially in light of the horrific photographs coming from Iraq and my loathing of Bush.

The Arab world may be in uproar and I understand why, but how come they have been so quiet when it comes to the torture, murder and abuse that happens in their own prison systems? Many Arab countries have human rights records so poor it?s common knowledge that religious and political prisoners are mutilated and murdered within their own countries.

Targeting their anger specifically on the US, rather then putting their own human rights abuses under the microscope smells funny to me?

[mart]

I was looking at the US magazine "Commentary" today. OK it always has been an openly Jewish-American view of world affairs but now!!!!
Anti-UN. Obviously because of the criticism of Israel.
Pro-Bush (and anti-Clinton) because of his war against (arab) terrorism.
Deeply critical of the Muslim religion.

It's so difficult to be critical of Zionist extremism without seeming to be "anti Semitic".

Mart

[mart]

I agree with your basic point but isn't the latest spin on the US/UK etc. intervention in Iraq supposed to be showing how the "Democratic" powers handle things rather differently.

Mart

[Spook]

This is not logical in any way.

The idea that Saddam was thumbing his nose at the UN with impunity is absolute garbage.

The UN sanctions meant that he was entirely hamstrung and was no threat whatsoever to Arab neighbours. Witness the 20 year out of date military hardware with which his troops got slaughtered using against the Americans

Do you really think that other middle-eastern were looking at Iraq and thinking - "wow, hard-line international sanctions that will cripple our economy and any hope we might have for military expansion - we'll have some of that".

"I had no crystal ball and could forsee the disasterous turn all of this has taken...could you? of course not."

Well actually yes.

An invasion - without any justification in international law by a super-power that is far from liked in the Arab world - and for which the main WMD justification given was clearly nonesense. Ousting a dictator who controlled an artificial country comprising three main antipathtic groups with numerous sub-groupings, some backed by international terror groups. I have no crystal ball - but anyone who thought that this situation would result in the Iraqis welcoming the US & unite behind them to build a new non-theocratic western-style democracy in Iraq was optimistic in the extreme.

[mart]

Perhaps Yugoslavia should have been a warning. A country formed artificially, run by a dictator who used power to keep warring factions under control. OK not a complete analogy because it was in existence post WWl and Tito was Post WWll but do you see what I mean.

Mart

[Spook]

Seems like a reasonable comparison.

And to add to the mix you've got an invasion by a country that is not liked by a great many Arabs. Whether or not its "fair and reasonable" for Arabs to dislike the US is not the issue - but it was surely a bit far-fetched to imagine that Iraqis would welcome the US with open arms.

I think that the ousting of Saddam may have worked if the US had used proper diplomacy to build a genuine international coalition against him - and this may have been possible by concentrating on his dreadful regime . But their bullying of Blix and the UN, the paucity of the WMD and "war on terror arguments", the predetermined neo-con plan to oust saddam thought up before Bush came to power, etc etc, made this impossible.

Even such a "world-wide" effort would surely have faced huge difficulties in trying to fill the vacuum left by Saddam's departure - and it would be highly debateable whether or not it was better just to keep the sanctions in place. Although, admittedly, neither route would be problem-free.

But I just honestly can't see how the invasion, as it has happened, can end positively. Its not anti-Americanism - clearly they were quite right to go into Afghanistan, I take no satisafaction whatsoever from hearing of US deaths in Iraq and I can see some nobility in the desire to oust despotic regimes in the middle-east. Its just that I've got no idea who could reasonably think that this plan would work out for the best.

[Deuce Bigolo]

Call me a cynic but I've no doubts that those who proposed the invasion did so not to bring peace & stability to the region-just the opposite

A Christian country invading a predominantly Muslim one spells crusade disaster all over again....but if i can see that then those in power can too

The US of A is a War Machine and peace is the last thing it wants although its propaganda says different...terrorism might be the current scourge but then the C.I A. for mine haven't been much better

Saw a program the other night which showed the stockpile of old/retired/out of date weapons dating back to WWII in the Arizona or Nevada desert that the US sell to other IDIOT Allie countries like Australia

Enough stuff to supply at least another dozen wars and then some

cheers
B....OZ

[jj]

I'm perfectly comfortable with slagging off those Islamic states (i.e. most of them) that have dismal human rights records. To do anything else would be moral relativism, - a bit like the US criticising them while putting mentally deficient 16-y-os on Death Row, then.........
But that won't bring large-scale change (indeed, it often has the opposite effect by encouraging entrenchmnent of attitudes)- that will have to await the long and painful struggle of these nations to western standards of prosperity and some form of respect for the individual, whether based on a our democratic models or otherwise (although I'm yet to be convinced there IS an 'otherwise'..........).