Ah, yes. FB, thank you for replying. Exactly, my boy, exactly. So - for instance - if the international community said it was ok for a dictator to remain in power, despite the fact he was decidedly anti-freedom, anti-liberty, anti-the pursuit of happiness (except for himself) - it would be appropriate for us to oppose such a regime, yes? And if we had the power to remove such a regime, despite what others may think, it would be appropriate for us to do so, right?
Perspective - This is People's Daily, the official propaganda machine of the Communist Party. If it came from a legitimate non-governmental newspaper I might be more introspective. I find it interesting how these strong anti-US attack articles seem to show up as a rule when China gets any press that is at all critical in the US. It occurs like clockwork. I speak specifically of the State Department's annual human rights list, which always draws a response from China which reminds me of the effective playground comeback of your youth, "Yah, well you're stupid too!". The subject in this case that would be the coverage of Zhao Ziyang's death and response (or lack there of) by the Communist Party. The disgraced former party leader was generally praised in US media and the pseudo-suppression of the event by the China was viewed with everything from bewilderment to mild scorn by US media. I also find it interesting that I heard a 2 hour radio program on PRI last week, a major segment of which dealt with the subject of "Chinese Nationalism" and the forms it takes. Of course, that may just be a coincidence.
i think that original article encompasses all the negative and incorrect stereotypes that the world has of america and americans.
It would be appropriate for us to oppose them? Yes. It would be appropriate for us to use the military to over throw them based on their beliefs about power alone? No We could not do business with that nation. We could pursuade others to not do business with that nation. We could help opposition groups inside that country provided the opposition group actually believed in those ideals as well. As for what others might think, when the facts are on your side, and you are willing to listen to what others have to say about it as well, then it is often possible to get others to be on your side. In Iraq we did an awful job of having the facts on our side, or listening to what others had to say.
Grizzled wasn't commenting on the number that died from sanctions, he was commenting on those that Saddam killed directly. Nice red herring, though. Actually, the estimate I saw (a number put out by the administration, so it is certainly up for debate) was about 300K killed by Saddam in his thirty year reign. That means that in less than two years, the USA has killed a third as many civilians as Saddam did in three decades. So which is worse, the tyrant who kills political enemies or the "liberator" who kills far more people when measured on an average per day. This is certainly up for debate. The only body that had the right to find Iraq in violation of the GWI cease-fire agreement was the UNSC. The weapons inspectors (who were working for the UNSC) specifically asked for more time to complete their work and were rebuffed by GWB. WE are the ones who went around the UNSC. We claimed that we were doing it because Saddam had not disarmed (a claim that was patently false) and we claimed that the cease fire agreement gave us that right (which it did not). Our leaders lied to us and the world, either unwittingly as a result of intelligence provided by a hostile government, or knowingly. Either way, it is certainly the US that bears the brunt of the blame for the debale in Iraq. But supporting the rule of law is directly in line with those principles. We skirted the rule of law when we broke the cease-fire agreement and invaded. Saddam was a bad man, a tyrant, and a despot, but Iraq was not in violation of the cease fire agreement, with the possible exception of some paperwork errors, errors that were being verified by weapons inspectors right up until GWB and his cabal decided they needed to get their war on. Supporting the rule of law would have been leading the UN to find Saddam in violation of the UNSC resolutions. Supporting the rule of law would have been letting the inspectors finish their work. The principles of freedom, liberty, and democracy have been battered in the court of world opinion as a result of the lies told to the world by the US leading up to the war. Really, the WHOLE population of Europe protested US troops during the cold war? I must have been asleep when the entire population of France marched on the Eiffel Tower. There were certainly some protests in that time, but I would challenge you to prove your inferred assertion that more people protested the US during the cold war than protested our actions in Iraq (which I heard described as the biggest anti-US protests in history). Out of 200 and some odd countries in the world, less than 40 signed on to the "coalition," for less than 20% of the world. Contrast that with GHWB's REAL coalition in '91, which included half of the world and only required the US to foot something like half of the total bill. Riiiiiiight, keep telling yourself that. You are welcome to believe that GWB and his crew were in this for altruistic reasons, but if you buy that one so easily, I would like ot show you the deed I have for this bridge right outside of Baytown.
Why are we surprised (much less disappointed) that the number of dead civilians in wartime is anywhere close to the number of civilians murdered by Saddam's regime? I thought that the estimates of dead by the word of Saddam, Qusay, or Uday was between 400,000 and 500,000. In that case, the sins of the sons are visited upon the father because he gave carte blanche.
Sorry for the late reply. I’ve been plunking away at this in bits and pieces. I’m going to duplicate some of the very good points AM raises, but I think that only reinforces the points. First off, this isn’t what I said. What I said was that more civilians have been killed by the war than Saddam killed in the previous 20 years. I’ll explain the difference below. I was not including the people who died due to the sanctions or the problems with the food for oil agreement. I certainly don’t absolve Saddam of blame for these deaths, but there is more blame to go around for those deaths than just Saddam’s. If an adult leaves a child in the hands of a known child abuser and the child gets abused, whose fault is it? Blame falls clearly on the abuser, but most would say that just as much blame falls on the adult who behaved in a manner that endangered the safety of the child. Indeed the adult actively and knowingly placed the child in danger. The people of Iraq were helpless, like a child. The international community had a responsibility to behave in a manner that helped that child, not hurt it. This was in fact another case of what we are looking at in Iraq now, even if we ignore all the evidence and logic and chose to believe the claims of this administration for a moment. What we see is the simple logic that if a cure is worse than the disease, then it isn’t a cure. Lest we get diverted into a discussion about the sanctions and whose responsibility the deaths that resulted from them are, let make a different comparison. Almost certainly well over 100 times as many civilians will have been killed over the last two years in this war than would have been killed if there wouldn’t have been a war, and there is no end in sight. In fact there is a very real possibility of this descending into civil war. Only the most perverse could call the current or foreseeable situation in Iraq “liberation” or “freedom”. ”Iraq war illegal” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm And before you say that the UN doesn’t matter, you don’t get to pick and chose what laws you follow and what laws you don’t if you are claiming to be a beacon of law abiding democratic values. As the fourth point in the top first post suggests, picking and choosing which laws to follow doesn’t make this administration democrats and moralists, it makes them opportunists and hypocrites. Again, if the cure is worse than the disease, then it isn’t a cure. In this case clearly the actions of this administration do not advance the principles of freedom, liberty or democracy, and are in fact a violation of all three. But this is a somewhat moot point because no one believes that this is what this administration was intending to do. In fact this only a late excuse they tacked on after their claims about WMD and links to terrorism where shown to be fraudulent. And of course there is the obvious contradiction involving Saudi Arabia which clearly has a non-democratic, oppressive, hated, regime, and has very strong ties to terrorism. Most of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, of course. So where is this administration intervening to “advance freedom and democracy”? It’s NOT Saudi Arabia. It’s Iraq. The proof is in the actions, not the words. No one outside the US believes this administration anymore. They are lame ducks with only coercive power at their disposal and absolutely 0 moral authority. But I don’t think they care what happens outside of the US. They know how to con the American public and they know how to fill their own pockets with money, and when the consequences of all this finally come home to roost, they’ll be long gone. And this lies at the heart of the problem. This administration CANNOT unilaterally redefine the concepts of freedom and democracy. They clearly believe they can. They appear to believe that they are law unto themselves, and history tells us pretty clearly what happens to rulers descend to this level of arrogance, but I digress. These concepts, from a legal perspective, are established through open dialogue and agreement between the nations of the world, in accordance with the principles of democracy. Yet at again we see this administration taking an anti-democratic, even tyrannical, position. Without getting too sidetracked, in this case the governments are against what this administration has done too, so your example doesn’t fit. Well, it’s not numerous, as you well know. And there is considerable reason to question their motives for supporting what this administration is doing, especially since almost none of them actually have troops in Iraq. I don’t know where this comes from or what your point is, but clearly this administration has shown a contempt for international law and the principles of democracy. It launched an illegal war that has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians in Iraq, and looks to be heading toward entrenching long term instability and warfare in the country for years to come. This administration has stolen what freedom most of these people had (and I have a prof whose family is still in Baghdad, so I have first hand information on this) and of course, they have stolen the very lives of thousands upon thousands, and you can infringe on a person’s freedom much more than that. What this administration has done is clearly a war crime, as the likes of Stephen Hawking have pointed out, and possibly a crime against humanity. I hope the world community has the courage to prosecute these people, and I hope the next administration has the courage to turn them over for prosecution, when their day or reckoning comes.
http://www.historychannel.com/perl/print_book.pl?ID=225473 Seems like the British and Indians did all of the fighting for you ... don't think they'll be there next time.
How certain are we about the 100,000 figure? http://www.townhall.com/columnists/helledale/HD20041202.shtml That is an extrapolated number taken from a small sample apparently, not an actual body count. How convenient!
And what are the administration claims of 300,000 dead Iraqis during Saddam's reign taken from? Chalabi? Suffice to say that the civilian body count during this war has been far higher per year than during Saddam's time, negating one of the "moving target" reasons this administration gives for going to war. How convenient that every time one of their claims turns out to be mistaken, exaggerated, or provided by an agent of a hostile government they just cook up another one for Hannity, Limbaugh, and O'Liely to snow y'all with.
High Hopes, Hard Facts The world’s a stage: His ideals are soaring, but now Bush must live and lead by his own code. By Fareed Zakaria Newsweek International Jan. 31 issue - It was a speech written for the ages, and it will live in history as a powerful affirmation of American ideas and ideals. George W. Bush’s second Inaugural Address was the culmination, in style and substance, of a position he has been veering toward ever since September 11, 2001: that the purpose of American foreign policy must be the expansion of liberty. It is not a new theme for an American president. Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan all spoke in similar tones and terms. Bush, however, has brought to the cause the passion of the convert. In short declarative sentences, influenced by the King James Bible and by his most eloquent predecessors, Bush used virtually his entire speech to set out the distinctively American world view: that “the best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.” To borrow an old saw about the mission of journalism, Bush’s words will “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” Democratic reformers around the world will surely take heart. Dictators will nervously ponder what it all means. This, too, is in a great American tradition. When Wilson and Roosevelt spoke out against empires, it rattled Europe’s great powers. When Kennedy and Reagan spoke about freedom, it worried the juntas of Latin America and the despots of East Asia. When the Carter administration began issuing annual reports on human rights, it unnerved regimes across the world. In speaking honestly and openly about the importance and universality of freedom, America—and, to be fair, Europe—have made a difference. They have put freedom on the global agenda. Bush has aimed to push it even higher. In doing so, however, Bush has also pushed higher on the agenda the question of American hypocrisy. I often argue with an Indian businessman friend of mine that America is unfairly singled out for scrutiny abroad. “Why didn’t anyone criticize the French or Chinese for their meager response to the tsunami?” I asked him recently. His response was simple. “America positions itself as the moral arbiter of the world, it pronounces on the virtues of all other regimes, it tells the rest of the world whether they are good or evil,” he said. “No one else does that. America singles itself out. And so the gap between what it says and what it does is blindingly obvious—and for most of us, extremely annoying.” That gap just grew a lot bigger. The gap is pronounced because Bush has done more with this speech than praise liberty. He has declared that promoting freedom is now American policy. In 1947, Harry Truman announced the “Truman Doctrine” that turned into the containment of the Soviet Union by saying, “I believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.” Echoing that formulation, Bush declared, “So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.” The president goes on to outline various stances that the United States will adopt in the future, all suggesting a broad shift in American policy. The chasm between rhetoric and reality, while inevitable, is striking. The Bush administration has not been particularly vociferous in holding dictators to account—no more or less, really, than other recent administrations. Vladimir Putin has presided over the most significant reversal of freedoms across the globe, only to be praised by Bush as a soulmate. More scandalously, the president has sided with Putin in his interpretation of the Chechen war as a defensive action against terrorists. In fact, while it is a complicated story, the Russian Army has killed about 100,000 Chechen civilians in a brutal campaign to deny them the right to secede. The president said in his speech to the world’s democrats, “When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.” But when democratic Taiwan stood up to communist China last year, Bush publicly admonished it, siding with Beijing. When brave dissidents in Saudi Arabia were jailed for proposing the possibility of a constitutional monarchy in that country, the administration barely mentioned it. Crown Prince Abdullah, who rules one of the eight most repressive countries in the world (according to Freedom House), is one of a handful of leaders to have been invited to the president’s ranch in Crawford, Texas. (The elected leaders of, say, India, France, Turkey and Indonesia have never been accorded this courtesy.) The president has met with and given aid to Islam Karimov, the dictator of Uzbekistan, who presides over one of the nastiest regimes in the world today, far more repressive than Iran’s, to take just one example. I do not mean to suggest that in all these cases the president should invade or break ranks with or even condemn these leaders. There are understandable reasons why the United States must look after its security, as well as its political and economic concerns. But President Bush has suggested in his speech that there is no conflict between America’s ideals and its interests. The record of his administration—as all previous ones—highlights the opposite. The place where the president is fundamentally right to assert this convergence of interests and ideals is the Middle East. At base, the terror emanating from the region is produced by the absence of freedom and openness—economic, political, social, intellectual. In a familiar pattern, extreme and violent repression by governments has produced a culture of extreme and violent opposition. (There are other causes and complaints, such as American foreign policy. America has been guilty of injustices in countries like Vietnam and Chile, however, and it has not produced a culture of suicide bombers and jihadis.) In the Middle East, advancing freedom is, in Bush’s words, “the urgent requirement of [America’s] security, and the calling of our time.” President Bush’s impulse to stop supporting the status quo in the Middle East and promote reform and freedom has broad support within America. The question is, how to do it? The answer is not always obvious. In Jordan, for example, the unelected monarch is more liberal, more open and more progressive than most of the elected democrats, many of whom are deeply reactionary. The United Arab Emirates is rated one of the least free countries in the world, yet its biggest city, Dubai, is quickly becoming an open, free-market haven. While Bush has been visionary in his goals, he has not provided much practical wisdom on how to attain them in a complex world. This lack of attention to the long, hard slog of actually promoting democracy might explain why things have gone so poorly in the most important practical application of the Bush Doctrine so far—Iraq. Convinced that bringing freedom to a country meant simply getting rid of the tyrant, the Bush administration seems to have done virtually no serious postwar planning to keep law and order, let alone to build the institutions of a democratic state. If this sounds like an exaggeration, consider the extraordinary words in the “after-action report” of the most important division of the American Army in Iraq, the Third Infantry Division, quoted in a recent essay by Michael O’Hanlon. It reads: “Higher headquarters did not provide the Third Infantry Division (Mechanized) with a plan for Phase IV [the postwar phase]. As a result, Third Infantry Division transitioned into Phase IV in the absence of guidance.” From Versailles to Vietnam, this has always been the danger of American idealism. Not that the ideals were wrong or dangerous, but rather that, satisfied by the virtues of their grand goals, American policymakers lost sight of the practical realities on the ground. In Iraq, the administration is tackling the right problem, even if it has not been adept at constructing a solution. But outside of the Middle East, is the problem of tyranny the “calling of our time”? Is it the dominating issue for the world at large today? Bush has self-consciously echoed one Inaugural Address more than any other: John Kennedy’s 1961 speech, which JFK also addressed mostly to the world, promising to “pay any price, bear any burden … to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” When John Kennedy was speaking, the vast majority of the world was unfree. Some of the largest and most productive regions of the world were ruled by powerful, totalitarian regimes that controlled every aspect of their subjects’ lives and threatened the free world with armed might. Today, we live in a world that is mostly free. In 1972, when Freedom House began its practice of ranking countries on a scale of free and unfree, it placed 54 (of the world’s 149) in the unfree category, with scores of 6 or more (with 7 being the most unfree). Today only 25 of the world’s 192 countries score 6 or higher. Condoleezza Rice listed some of this ragtag bunch in her Senate testimony: Cuba, Burma, North Korea, Iran, Belarus and Zimbabwe. Is ending Burmese tyranny the urgent requirement of America’s security? Is battling Cuba’s decrepit regime the calling of our time? We live in a democratic age. Many countries that are not liberal democracies are often strange mixtures of freedom and unfreedom. Russia, for all Putin’s faults, is a far more open society and economy than any communist country ever was. China, often described as a totalitarian state, is actually a similar kind of mixture: a country in which people can increasingly live, work, travel, buy, sell, trade and even worship where they want, but without any political freedom. Talk to a young Chinese official, and he will tell you that his country will loosen up those restrictions over time. This does not make Russia or China free, but neither are they the totalitarian tyrannies of old. For much of the world, the problem is not the will for democracy but the capacity to build and sustain a stable, effective and decent government. Pakistan, for example, has not lacked a will for democracy; it established one in 1947. But since then, because of weak social structures, economic stagnation and political crises, it has often veered toward dictatorship and, even worse, collapse. Recently, while democratic, it was careering into an almost-failed-state status. Dr. Rice now says that it is on the path of moderation, but it is doing so under a military dictator. The United States has tried to bring democracy to Haiti almost a dozen times, in different ways. None of them has stuck. For much of the world, the great challenge today is civil strife, extreme poverty and disease, which overwhelms not only democracy but order itself. It is not that such societies are unconcerned about freedom. Everyone, everywhere, would choose to control his own destiny. But this does not mean as much when the basic order that precedes civilized life is threatened, and disease and death are the most pressing daily concern. Much of Africa is reasonably free, holds elections and is far more open than ever before. The great challenge in, say, Senegal and Namibia is not freedom but an effective state. The author of American liberty, James Madison, wrote in The Federalist papers that “in framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” Order and then liberty (we might have remembered this in Iraq). The writing is on the wall. The remaining tyrannies will eventually perish. And the world will move slowly toward greater and greater freedom. The United States is right to push this trend forward. The president is wise to articulate the path ahead. But we should also note the trends toward chaos, plague and poverty, which consume the attentions of much of the world. These are also great evils, and we should propose ways to lead the world in tackling them. That, too, would make for an interesting and important speech. It was a speech written for the ages, and it will live in history as a powerful affirmation of American ideas and ideals. George W. Bush’s second Inaugural Address was the culmination, in style and substance, of a position he has been veering toward ever since September 11, 2001: that the purpose of American foreign policy must be the expansion of liberty. It is not a new theme for an American president. Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan all spoke in similar tones and terms. Bush, however, has brought to the cause the passion of the convert. In short declarative sentences, influenced by the King James Bible and by his most eloquent predecessors, Bush used virtually his entire speech to set out the distinctively American world view: that “the best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.” To borrow an old saw about the mission of journalism, Bush’s words will “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” Democratic reformers around the world will surely take heart. Dictators will nervously ponder what it all means. This, too, is in a great American tradition. When Wilson and Roosevelt spoke out against empires, it rattled Europe’s great powers. When Kennedy and Reagan spoke about freedom, it worried the juntas of Latin America and the despots of East Asia. When the Carter administration began issuing annual reports on human rights, it unnerved regimes across the world. In speaking honestly and openly about the importance and universality of freedom, America—and, to be fair, Europe—have made a difference. They have put freedom on the global agenda. Bush has aimed to push it even higher. In doing so, however, Bush has also pushed higher on the agenda the question of American hypocrisy. I often argue with an Indian businessman friend of mine that America is unfairly singled out for scrutiny abroad. “Why didn’t anyone criticize the French or Chinese for their meager response to the tsunami?” I asked him recently. His response was simple. “America positions itself as the moral arbiter of the world, it pronounces on the virtues of all other regimes, it tells the rest of the world whether they are good or evil,” he said. “No one else does that. America singles itself out. And so the gap between what it says and what it does is blindingly obvious—and for most of us, extremely annoying.” That gap just grew a lot bigger. The gap is pronounced because Bush has done more with this speech than praise liberty. He has declared that promoting freedom is now American policy. In 1947, Harry Truman announced the “Truman Doctrine” that turned into the containment of the Soviet Union by saying, “I believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.” Echoing that formulation, Bush declared, “So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.” The president goes on to outline various stances that the United States will adopt in the future, all suggesting a broad shift in American policy. © 2005 Newsweek, Inc. URL: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6857531/site/newsweek/
A loaded liberal college course on Ethnic Studies will make some people familiar on the topic of American Nationalism. From a white perspective, these are inaccurate stereotypes. The Declaration of Independence is fine and dandy, but when the Constitution has provisions like the 3/5 rule and indirect elitist elections liberty and justice for All doesn't ring true. The Constitution is a living document that changes with popular and judicial review, but the original intent and spirit can't be marginalized. Worldwide, the face of an American is white. Americans know otherwise, but the media representation, our media, portrays the sucessful wasp charicature. Why do minorities cry for diversity on TV when ratings don't allow it? Perhaps the shows that are diverse aren't well written. America has been invaded before, but that was once when America wasn't a legitimate country in the worldview and its landmass was the size of Chile. Since then, American history has been marked by a period of expansion and oppression of the indigenous people from the land they took. Mexican, Native American, Black, Chinese, Italian, and Irish have all faced discrimination and the pressure to Assimilate into the American culture. If this melting pot existed, what exactly was there to assimilate from and what were the origins? Cultures that failed to assimilate, those that kept their cultures, are frowned upon and distrusted. The government went as far as uprooting Indian tribes with urban housing and managing their lands by proxy. We venerate the Noble Savage, even cast down whites in popular movies, but what lesson is learned? Or are there other motives for that portrayal? That is what the Nationalism the article refers to. I agree with another poster that this was a likely ploy by the PRC to divert attention from Zhao Ziyang's death. The Soviets used MLK and the civil rights movement as a front for the same reasons. But that doesn't take away from our past actions and the ideals we espouse. We should be more inclined to freely address amongst ourselves about these issues instead of taking what we know for granted. I don't intend to thread cap to race. It was easier to clarify the other side's perspective and to show that even if it is a state owned rag, it does have a point to a certain extent.
I don't believe that that 300,000 figure is supplied by the Administration. Yes, the number of deaths has been at a higher rate-- it's a war! And let's not forget that a goodly number of the dead are killed by the insurgency. I've looked for estimates on that but couldn't find anything. I guess I could go back and look at every news story which describes the death of 1-5 American soldiers and tally up the dead 3-50 Iraqi civilians but I just don't have time.
Yes, an elective war started based on "intelligence" provided by an agent of a hostile government. GWB and his cabal were duped into starting a war that has claimed more civilian lives per day than Saddam killed during his reign. And yet you mindlessly parrot the current party lines about the war having been fought for "liberty" and "freedom." Where is the accountability? An insurgency that would not have been 1) if we had not invaded 2) if we had put the proper number of troops on the ground 3) if we had not disbanded the entire Iraqi military. These civilians were killed based on lies, mistakes, and oversights and people like you continue to make excuses for the administration that brought all these problems.
1. Are you trying to assert that the decision to prosecute this war was based on ONE piece of intelligence? 2. More civilians lives PER DAY... what did Twain say? Something about liars, damned liars, and statisticians or something like that? 3. I have pointed out numerous times from the day after the SOTU2003 that there were multiple reasons cited by Bush for the actions-to-come. WMDs which Saddam had, in fact, already used were but one of those reasons mentioned long after the arguments made for human freedom. Go on, read it. 4. Well, duh, of course there would be no insurgency without a war. That's not the point. The point is how many Iraqis the insurgents willingly and recklesslly kill in their pursuit of the enemy. 5. For whom have I made excuses here? I challenged the number that YOU so mindlessly parrot because it suits your agenda.
