Pacifists...don't watch History Channel right now...

They had an equally disturbing report on North Korea's detention camps on the NBC News tonight -- plenty of graphic torture and abuse stories. They estimate there are currently 200,000 political prisoners being held in N. Korea. Very unsettling to think that people like this exist in the world.

 

Horrible acts occur everywhere Cohen, let's open 'er up!! Let's take some names!

 

Good thing Rwanda doesn't produce oil or we'd have had to put a stop to men cutting open pregnant women and beheading children for stealing bread.

 

*mouth agape*. Nicely said Heretic. There have been thousands of places where it seemed compelling to intercede in another country's affairs (Bosnia, Rwanda, N. Korea, US of Ashcroft, China), etc. I am morally compelled by compassion to do so... (sovereign states or not).

I am dubious that the republicans, however, are as receptive to the rhetoric that they themselves pose (in order to sway liberals now). The republicans opposed Bosnia and Somalia, they oppose N. Korea now. The Clintorporate w**** did not take us to Rwanda. He supported and supports most favored nation status for China. I don't see the litmus test. Saudia Arabia is probably our biggest enemy in the war against terror. Iran is certainly more culpable than Iraq. Syria, Lebanon, N. Korea, China all commit crimes against humanity. Why do we pick our battles in such strange ways? N. Korea is building nuclear weapons. Sadaam is a peasant. The N. Koreans are making a mockery of Bush. None of this foreign policy makes sense. Though I'm receptive to kickin' ass in the name of the little guy, I never assume that the administrations are swayed by the same moral duty. I see the idea of kickin' ass in the name of us, but how is N. Korea less of a threat than Iraq? Iraq is in a box, and N. Korea is openly inviting war with us. WTF? They only push the envelope for other rogue states... and Bush is acting the pus. Too strange.

 

Rwandan civil war body count was what, about 500,000 and counting?

Congo civil war claimed something like 2 million lives?


We only intervene in human rights cases if it's politically or economically convenient. But that's just my opinion and I'm sure John Ashcroft would tell you that I'm supporting terrorism by saying that.

 

Great posts Heretic and Heb. I also find the policy puzzling. North Korea is basically challenging us to war while Saddam is wetting his pants and somehow Iraq is more of a threat.

 

Let's not forget that Saddam was doing this stuff in the 80s as well, but we turned a blind eye to the human rights violations . . . didn't hear anyone calling for his ousting back then, like in March of 1988 when he used chemical weapons and gassed 5,000 Iraqi Kurds in Halabja . . .

Saddam is an evil person who should not be in control of that country. That being said, why is it only now we care? And how come it's only him we care about when there are many other warlords (some of whom are supported by the U.S.) who also torture and murder? If "Saddam kills his own people" is your reason for going to war, why wasn't it used 20 years ago? And why don't we apply the same standard to other rulers?

 

I don't think I'm a pacifist, I'm a "justifist." I think Bush either needs to just spill and say that the # priority in Iraq is really oil, or do the right thing and help all the people in the world who are living under the rule of dictators and tyrants. Burma anyone? You know we do business with this country, even though they are a military dictatorship. Shouldn't we be defending Democracy? Is there even an embargo there?


http://www.freeburmacoalition.org/frames/home.htm

Here's a list of companies that have their products made in Burma. Anyways, all I'm saying is I dont' want to here any more bull from Bush about how we are doing the right thing by freeing the people of Iraq. If that were the case, we'd be there now or helping people elsewhere.

 

I didn't know you could go pro as a rapist.

 

Almost all dictators have their methods of brutal punishment. Iraq is no different.

 

If that is true then please explain Somalia. Explain sanctions on China after Tianamen Square. It simply is not true.

In fact, the Somali experience is the reason we did NOT intervene in Rwanda. Somalia reenforced all our older insecurities from the Vietnam era. We arrived on a humanitarian mission, it became obvious that people would continue to starve and the country would continue to fall apart if the warlord system was left in place; we attempted to remove the main warlord but as it turned out the Somalis were not supportive of that, making further engagement bound to fail. We withdrew are were basically gunshy of putting troops back on the ground in Africa.

Q: Why Iraq and not N Korea?
A: First, there is not a major power around Iraq to prevent potential aggression, there are two around N Korea (PRC & Japan). Second, we DO have 40,000 PERMANENTLY stationed troops positioned directly on N Korea's border. Are we forgetting that? They have been there for FIFTY years. Do we anticipate our troops being in Saudi Arabia that long? I don't believe that was ever the intention regardless of whether or not we invade Iraq. Third, yes oil is important. Why is that a problem? No one can deny that Iraq has a propensity to INVADE their oil producing neighbors (Iran & Kuwait). If the choice is between N Korea proliferating and Iraq proliferating it would certainly make sense to concentrate on stopping Iraq. N Korea might be able to blackmail some welfare cheese out of their nukes, but Iraq could potentially control a resource necessary for the world's economy to function.

 

As far as the original thread topic about pacifists and Iraqi torturers I think the other posters exposed its lack of logical meat. I just can't buy the logic that we love those Iraqis so much that as big humanitarians we need to start a war to liberate them.

Next thing we'll have Laura Bush, noted feminist, talking about the state of women's rights in Iraq as a reason to invade.. Remember that silliness with her and the women of Afghanistan when we were talking up the attack? Haven't see any follow up by Laura on the fate of women under the current regime in Afghanistan.

Hayes, interesingly you try to support Bush in his Iraq focus. Any proof that Iraq is more a threat to have nukes then N. Korea.?

Gibberish about Korea surrounded by strong countries. I guess you forgot that Iraq has a nuclear armed , Israel as a neighbor. How about respecting the position of most of the countries around Iraq and N. Korea that don't like our militaristic escalation in those two regions? You're straining in your defense of Iraq not N. Korea.

Good to see you acknowlege the oil motive. Interestingly the Bush gang seems to be more public about it lately with their talk that they can finance the occupation of Iraq with their oil. No oil to finance the occupation of N. Korea.