Iran: failure of appeasement? or can we trust the intel?

[Serg]

Date: 1/2/2005 1:17:55 PM
Author: diamondgeezer

World system is not simple. Any coercion can not do World better.

of course, you are right, coercion can not do the world any better, because as we all know, the third reich was defeated by people linking hands and singing nice songs... give me a break. whilst you are right, the world system is not simple, tyrants are. if you want to tackle a tyrant, you must think like one. it is no good to assume they are honest, upstanding men, with nothing less than a full respect for human rights etc. coercion is all that enemies of liberty understand. tyrants do not recognise the rule of law, either domestic or international, to them a treaty, an agreement, is nothing more than a piece of paper, something that buys them more time, a symbol of the weakness of the international community.

we should have used coercion against Hitler when he remilitarised the Rhineland, invaded the Sudentenland, announced anchluss with Austria etc, had we have done, the horrors of the holocaust and the second world war may well have been avoided. [note - in defence of Neville Chamberlain, the British armed forces had been allowed to deterioriate to the point where in 1938 we would have been unable to mount any serious challenge to the National Socialist government in Germany.] would you have proposed appeasement even after he and Stalin carved up Poland? would you have proposed appeasement after the National Socialists had seized Northern France? would you have propose appeasement when Hitler was at the beaches of Dover? so when exactly would you have used force to tackle the National Socialists?

Did you read Richard link:
Pop quiz time. Who was the first to gas the Kurds? Answer, Winston Churchill and the Brits, back in the 1920s:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,939608,00.html

" ...Churchill was particularly keen on chemical weapons, suggesting they be used "against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment". He dismissed objections as "unreasonable". "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes _ [to] spread a lively terror _" In today's terms, "the Arab" needed to be shocked and awed. A good gassing might well do the job.

Conventional raids, however, proved to be an effective deterrent. They brought Sheikh Mahmoud, the most persistent of Kurdish rebels, to heel, at little cost. Writing in 1921, Wing Commander J A Chamier suggested that the best way to demoralise local people was to concentrate bombing on the "most inaccessible village of the most prominent tribe which it is desired to punish. All available aircraft must be collected the attack with bombs and machine guns must be relentless and unremitting and carried on continuously by day and night, on houses, inhabitants, crops and cattle."

"The Arab and Kurd now know", reported Squadron Leader Harris after several such raids, "what real bombing means within 45 minutes a full-sized village can be practically wiped out, and a third of its inhabitants killed or injured, by four or five machines which offer them no real target, no opportunity for glory as warriors, no effective means of escape."

Is it far from fascism?

Do you remember USA force methods in Vietnam?
It was recently.

It is possible to destroy a reactor, it is possible to destroy even the nation. It is impossible to subdue the nation.
Current intrusion into Iraq or Iran means war with the nation, instead of war with the tyrant.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 1/3/2005 11:32

9 AM
Author: Serg

Current intrusion into Iraq or Iran means war with the nation, instead of war with the tyrant.

In my opinion it all boils down to this issue, beautifully enunciated by Serg: we are killing the Iraqi people by the thousands. We must stop it. We are causing a tragedy.

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

of course Churchill was no saint, but he was right that we should have confronted national socialism before it grew more powerful. the fact that he had a darker side should not cloud the fact that he was right about the folly of appeasement

Is it far from fascism?

I am not even going to bother trying to teach you what fascism is and what it isn''t, the term has been so abused over the years that it has lost all meaning. - I do apologise for sounding so condescending

Do you remember USA force methods in Vietnam?
It was recently.

stories of the US ''atrocities'' in Vietnam are largely manufactured by the anti-war movement, most of what John Kerry testified to under oath before the Senate were lies. however, the US military undoubtedly overstep the line between civilised and uncivilised behaviour in Vietnam in certain instances, My Lai for instance, however, we do need to consider their actions in the context of the time and the war they were fighting.

It is possible to destroy a reactor, it is possible to destroy even the nation. It is impossible to subdue the nation.
Current intrusion into Iraq or Iran means war with the nation, instead of war with the tyrant.

1.destroying the Iranian reactor and preventing them from developing a nuclear weapon was my suggestion. I do not want to destroy or subdue the Iranians, in fact it is the ayatollahs who are subduing the iranian people!!!
2.the purpose of the war is not to subdue a nation, to rid to the world of saddam, to find WMDs. it is about the neo-conservative agenda of promoting democracy, liberty and capitalism around the world - particularly the arab world.

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

In my opinion it all boils down to this issue, beautifully enunciated by Serg: we are killing the Iraqi people by the thousands. We must stop it. We are causing a tragedy.

agbf - what about the people maimed, tortured, raped, killed by Saddam? was that not a tragedy? the US is targetting terrorits, Baathists and insurgents, not innocent civilians. surely a liberal, humanitarian person such as yourself should be happy that Saddam is out of power and should be supporting moves towards a free, democratic Iraq.

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

I think people really need to go and find out what fascism is. the word has been so badly bastardised that it has come to mean anything that is remotely bad.

 

[Serg]

Date: 1/3/2005 1

8

1 PM
Author: diamondgeezer

In my opinion it all boils down to this issue, beautifully enunciated by Serg:  we are killing the Iraqi people by the thousands.  We must stop it.  We are causing a tragedy.

agbf - what about the people maimed, tortured, raped, killed by Saddam? was that not a tragedy? the US is targetting terrorits, Baathists and insurgents, not innocent civilians. surely a liberal, humanitarian person such as yourself should be happy that Saddam is out of power and should be supporting moves towards a free, democratic Iraq.

Of course USA cluster bombs could kill bad peoples only. It is very smart weapons.
Any Baathist has not right to life?
Terrorists, insurgents? May be do you mean guerillas?

You was insurgents or innocent civilians If will attack your country ?

 

[Serg]

Date: 1/3/2005 1

8:38 PM
Author: diamondgeezer
I think people really need to go and find out what fascism is. the word has been so badly bastardised that it has come to mean anything that is remotely bad.

My question is : Is it far from fascism?

May be it is more close to Nazism. The question "Is it far from Nazism ? " is more correct.
But question "Is it far from fascism?" is more important from my point of view. Of course it is not fascism, but it could be more close than we all are thinking now.

How many English was against from this War. But English government start war. Is it democracy?

 

[Serg]

re :however, the US military undoubtedly overstep the line between civilised and uncivilised behaviour in Vietnam in certain instances,

What I try say by my posts:

-If you had chose the way of coercion You could easy miss overstep the line between civilized and uncivilized .
-Common such line may be absent at all

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

May be it is more close to Nazism. The question ''Is it far from Nazism ? '' is more correct.
But question ''Is it far from fascism?'' is more important from my point of view. Of course it is not fascism, but it could be more close than we all are thinking now

I am sorry, but you do not understand. fascism, and even national socialism, are political and economic systems. fascism and national socialism are corporatist economic systems and politically and socially authoritarian/totalitarian in nature, investing all power in the state. fascist or national socialist movements were remarkably pragmatic, they would do anything for power. governments are not necessarily evil, they will not necessarily commit atrocities against civilians. for example, most Italian fascists didn''t take part in genocide, they actually considered it beneath the Italian race to do such things.

if you would like to use a word to describe it, try the other most abused word of the 20th century - evil

many English was against from this War. But English government start war. Is it democracy?

you do not seem to understand democracy. democracy is not the same as the tyranny of the majority. of course everyone uses this argument when they are in the majority - I use the same argument in favour of bring back the death penalty and leaving the EU. the fact that most people were against the war is immaterial, do you really think that the public has an in-depth knowledge of international relations theory or geo-political realities???

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

Date: 1/3/2005 2:54:16 PM
Author: Serg

re :however, the US military undoubtedly overstep the line between civilised and uncivilised behaviour in Vietnam in certain instances,

What I try say by my posts:

-If you had chose the way of coercion You could easy miss overstep the line between civilized and uncivilized .
-Common such line may be absent at all

good point, but -sadly- sometimes we must do some uncivilised things to protect the civilised world.

 

[Serg]

Date: 1/3/2005 3:13:40 PM
Author: diamondgeezer

May be it is more close to Nazism. The question  'Is it far from Nazism ? ' is more correct.
But question 'Is it far from fascism?' is more important from my point of view. Of course it is not fascism, but it could be more close than we all are  thinking now

I am sorry, but you do not understand. fascism, and even national socialism, are political and economic systems. fascism and national socialism are corporatist economic systems and politically and socially authoritarian/totalitarian in nature, investing all power in the state. fascist or national socialist movements were remarkably pragmatic, they would do anything for power. governments are not necessarily evil, they will not necessarily commit atrocities against civilians. for example, most Italian fascists didn't take part in genocide, they actually considered it beneath the Italian race to do such things.

if you would like to use a word to describe it, try the other most abused word of the 20th century - evil

many English was against from this War. But English government start war. Is it democracy?

you do not seem to understand democracy. democracy is not the same as the tyranny of the majority. of course everyone uses this argument when they are in the majority - I use the same argument in favour of bring back the death penalty and leaving the EU. the fact that most people were against the war is immaterial, do you really think that the public has an in-depth knowledge of international relations theory or geo-political realities???

I think I know definition of fascism very well.

Try to understand my question.
one key is from your part definition :fascist or national socialist movements were remarkably pragmatic

other key- "For Fascism, the State is an absolute, before which individuals or groups are only relative"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facism

re:do you really think that the public has an in-depth knowledge of international relations theory or geo-political realities???

Do you mean : Are public know Who and why created Alkaida and give authority to Sadam?

 

[AGBF]

Date: 1/3/2005 2

7:45 PM
Author: Serg


Of course USA cluster bombs could kill bad peoples only. It is very smart weapons.

With Serg participating, no one needs me in this thread. Our weapons would have to be very smart, indeed, to tell the guilty from the innocent; the torturers from the tortured. They would have to be even smarter to tell which people picked up arms to hurt other Iraqis without cause before the US invasion and which people picked up arms to defend themselves after the US invasion. I have my doubts about the intelligence of any weapon. When it is fired by a stranger who does not speak the same language as the people at whom he is shooting my doubts increase. When it can kill many people at once my doubts increase further.

On another note, why are the people who have taken up arms to defend their families against death from foreign invaders being called "insurgents"? Aren't they just fathers and brothers and sons trying to protect their own families? It seems to me that the "insurgents" in Iraq are doing what I hope the men in my family would do if armed invaders were at the door to our family home.

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

agbf - the US overthrew a dictator, those opposing the US are not normal Iraqis, they are Islamists from across the region and the remaining Baathists. we should support the US effort to get elections and legitimate government in that country, so it can be stabilised, establish the rule of law and then get the US troops out of there.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 1/3/2005 5:29

0 PM
Author: diamondgeezer
agbf - the US overthrew a dictator, those opposing the US are not normal Iraqis, they are Islamists from across the region and the remaining Baathists. we should support the US effort to get elections and legitimate government in that country, so it can be stabilised, establish the rule of law and then get the US troops out of there.

You may believe this; I do not. I think it is absurd to believe that the people we have been bombing would do anything *but* take up arms against us. Again: where is your proof that we are killing only the guilty? Ask a Vietnam veteran if *he* knew whom he was killing. The soldiers cannot tell one Iraqi from another and any of them may be bearing a gun with which to defend himself. You have obviously never been in combat.

 

[rubydick]

Date: 1/3/2005 1

4:33 PM
Author: diamondgeezer

stories of the US 'atrocities' in Vietnam are largely manufactured by the anti-war movement, most of what John Kerry testified to under oath before the Senate were lies. however, the US military undoubtedly overstep the line between civilised and uncivilised behaviour in Vietnam in certain instances, My Lai for instance, however, we do need to consider their actions in the context of the time and the war they were fighting.

I can't believe I'm reading this. Stories of US 'attrocities' in Vietnam largely manufactured? May I suggest you dip into some of the literature where GI's speak for themselves. Try Mark Baker's Nam. Or simply go down to your neighborhood video store and rent
Hearts and Minds. Or Vietnam: The Ten Thousand Day War.

Or how about letting the CIA speak for themselves. William Colby claimed that the Phoenix Program was responsible for the assassination of over 20,000 suspected Viet Cong. Note that this was "suspected." In other words, these were extrajudicial killings.

And how does that work. Here's an example. I am mad at Diamondgeezer and so I pass the word to the authorities that he is working for the rebels. Next thing you know, the pillion rider on a motorbike blows you away.

Don't believe it? Just look at Iraq this week, where the rebels themselves laid a trap, passed the word to the authorities that a house was being used by the rebels and then when the inevitable raid came, they blew it up.

Operation Condor was another example of security services running amuk. With "freedom fighters" like these, who needs fascists?

You say "most of what John Kerry testified to under oath before the Senate were lies." That's quite a statement. Can you please list out specifically which of his statements were lies?

 

[rubydick]

Date: 1/3/2005 1

4:33 PM
Author: diamondgeezer
I am not even going to bother trying to teach you what fascism is and what it isn''t, the term has been so abused over the years that it has lost all meaning. - I do apologise for sounding so condescending

Pardon me for double-posting, but this is such a rich vein that I will mine it a bit further.

A delicious comparison of fascism and the Bush misadministration has been floating around the ether for a while now. See it here:

Project for the Old American Century

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

richard, I really hope that POAC site was intended as a joke pandering to the prejudices and conspiracy theories of the far-left. that is how I took it, and I was genuinely amused. if it was intended to be serious, then I guess that is even more amusing!!!

 

[rubydick]

The Project for the New American Century is no conspiracy theory, but conspiracy fact. The Neocon agenda is there for anyone to view and absorb. It needs no commentary. They hang themselves with their own words, with no help from me.

Obviously the POAC site is a satire on that.

But here's Umberto Eco's take on fascism:

Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

I''m sorry... did I just read that fascists were anti-modernists... anti-modernists...??? fascists were actually ultra-modernists! national socialism in theory and practice is ultra-rationalistic! Germany was the most scientifically advanced nation in the world, it led the world in science and its eugenics programmes were the envy of the world. fascism and national socialism actually believed that mankind could create order, indeed, that the state could and must enforce this order. they believed that man could create a better and more perfect world. national socialists, as it says, worshipped science. and whilst, it is true that much of fascism displayed signs of paganism, it remained at heart an ideology that says man can create a better society.

I am not a rationalist, I do not believe that mankind can create, manipulate or change a society in a positive way. there are an infinite number of variables. I am a traditionalist, and irrationalism has been at the heart of anglo-saxon conservativism since before Burke, and it used to be at the heart of our radicalism (left wing) too. it is very sad to see that so many people have fallen prey to statist ideas.

 

[rubydick]

DG,

I sent along the Umberto Eco link only to show that there might be a difference of views on something, that one definition does not necessarily fit all. Eco''s views are obviously different from POAC and different from my own.

When I read Eco''s essay, I saw things I agreed with and others I didn''t. I hate to admit it, but I even saw myself in places there. I like Eco''s piece though, because it makes me think. Makes me examine my own ideas, my own beliefs.

In the end, I don''t see so much of the absolute, but just more shades of gray.

It''s such a cliché, but the older I get, the less certain I become.

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

I hate to admit it, but I even saw myself in places there.

1. what similarities did you see?
2. why do you hate to admit it? fascism was a hybrid ideology, taking elements from every part of the spectrum. remember that even a stopped clock is right twice a day. I won''t hesitate to say, you know what, the ACLU are wrong on church/state issues, wrong on immigration, wrong on affirmative action etc but they are right about the ironically named PATRIOT act

 

[Colored Gemstone Nut]

Date: 1/3/2005 5:29

0 PM
Author: diamondgeezer
agbf - the US overthrew a dictator, those opposing the US are not normal Iraqis, they are Islamists from across the region and the remaining Baathists. we should support the US effort to get elections and legitimate government in that country, so it can be stabilised, establish the rule of law and then get the US troops out of there.

DG,

I think the bigger issue here is in a democratic society (U.S) there is much of a "phasaad" being emphasized on what the government terms democracy as being and ideally what it in itself truly is.

Do you truly think the US is being democratic in methods being used to restore a form of government in a foreign country or if the troops who have frontline experience readily agree?

 

[AGBF]

The United States, like the ancient city-state of Athens during the Golden Age of Pericles, has for many years practiced democracy at home and imperialism abroad.

Deborah

 

[i_like_tiffany_please_dont_hate_me]

Date: 1/13/2005 1

9:59 PM
Author: AGBF
The United States, like the ancient city-state of Athens during the Golden Age of Pericles, has for many years practiced democracy at home and imperialism abroad.

Deborah

true, to a certain extent. but the US has been the most benign hegemon in world history. but what exactly is wrong with imperialism? lets not forget that Africa was in a much better state under colonial rule than it is now. the biggest problem on that continent is governance, and the fact that international aid is given to corrupt governments who use the money to keep themselves in power, penalise their enemies, reward their followers and live in luxury whilst the county goes to ruin.