Anti-Colonialism and American foreign policy

Discuss life, the universe, and everything with other members of this site. Get to know your fellow polywell enthusiasts.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

bcglorf
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:58 pm

Re: What did he do?

Post by bcglorf »

chrismb wrote:
bcglorf wrote:I can tell you for certain he deserved what he got and so very much more. That sits better with me than discussing if it was in America's best interests anyway.
Ah! yes, the law of the 'lynch mob'. As if the taming of the wild west never happened and was a rather redundant adjunct to American history.

All those little wind-swept towns on the high planes, with little slatted swing-doors into the bar [only one in town]. Those darn' outlaws, we gotta one 'ere, boss, let's stringemup on the ol' tree. What about due legal process? Nah! Look at 'im! Eee's got "wrongun" written all over 'is face! Ee's gotta be guilty of summut!!! String-em-up!

You Americans! How quaint!
If you want to call that lynch mob justice I'd suggest it worked well enough against Hitler. Do you really consider there to be a shadow of a doubt that Saddam wasn't guilty on multiple accounts of genocide and other crimes against humanity? There are valid arguments against the 2003 invasion, I didn't think any Brits aside of George Galloway actually thought mistreatment of Saddam was one.

Skipjack
Posts: 6105
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

Do you really consider there to be a shadow of a doubt that Saddam wasn't guilty on multiple accounts of genocide and other crimes against humanity?
I dont think anyone doubts that. There are many such dictators all over the world though. Many stay in their positions for a long time. Saddam was there while he fulfilled a purpose. When that was gone, so was he.

Skipjack
Posts: 6105
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

Which strangely enough is the point where a Panther's transmission craps out. 90 kms is shorter than the run a typical Sherman ran on the test track in the Detroit arsenal to break it in. I don't have the exact figures, but the MBTF for a Sherman transmission is measured in thousands of miles. That's why you almost never see a picture of a Sherman on a transporter and why tank transporters were mostly used as standard tractor trailors(look at red ball express pics).
Well, one has to weight the circumstances under which both of them were built. The german factories were subject to constant bombing, supply problems and what not. That does not help with producing quality work. Plus the Germans had to get everything they had to the front ASAP. They had no time for long testing. Nevertheless they produced some really impressive hardware. The German subs were by far the best of their time. They surpassed US subs in diving debth, noise and speed. The design of the Type 21 was so good, that the Russians copied it and kept it until the 60ies. The famous Nautilus also had some simillar features.

The US tanks were mostly mass instead of class. The Sherman was inferior in almost every aspect. It could not even crack the Tigers armor.

bcglorf
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:58 pm

Umm

Post by bcglorf »

Skipjack wrote:
Do you really consider there to be a shadow of a doubt that Saddam wasn't guilty on multiple accounts of genocide and other crimes against humanity?
I dont think anyone doubts that. There are many such dictators all over the world though. Many stay in their positions for a long time. Saddam was there while he fulfilled a purpose. When that was gone, so was he.
I think it still warrants a hurray when the world is relieved of another genocidal monster. Doesn't seem to me that the right response is to attack the ones that got rid of him solely because there are still others that deserve the same.

MSimon
Posts: 14332
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

Saddam was not only a monster. He was also destabilizing (more than could be tolerated) the lifeblood of current civilization.

And as some pointed out he was given a chance to mend the worst of his ways from 1991 to 2003. He was even offered "early retirement" in France if he would just leave before the balloon went up.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

Saddam was just a 'strong man' in a country that needed a strong man for stability.

There were other ways to remove him.

Recall when everyone complained about Ivan the Terrible. So he said to the Russian nobility "OK, guys, you don't like the fact that I torture people by frying them alive in huge frying pans? I'm gonna stand down, then!" and they said "Oh Sh*t! [if he does that, Russia will fall] OK, er... you better stay".

Same with Pinochet.

Same with Tito.

...who else can I mention...

These people have killed innocents. yeah. Is that a crime? Dunno - why is that any worse than bombing wedding parties in pakistan?

It's called 'politics', guys, and to try to pervert the sensibilities of 'logic' to discussing politics is like trying to use logic to persuade the tide not to come in.

MSimon
Posts: 14332
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

There were other ways to remove him.
Care to name one that worked?

As I understand it Iraq is now self governing without mass murder. How can that be if it requires a strong man to keep the country in order?
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

Just been catching up on the rest of this thread. Gee... I kicked off a hornet's nest there, I guess!?

You guys are just so.... American! Good for you. Must be nice to live in a country that you actually feel loyalty towards... and that you feel sure that you're always the good guys and the others are the baddies. Really, it is to be commended.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Post by chrismb »

MSimon wrote:
There were other ways to remove him.
Care to name one that worked?
I could name one, with absolute certainty of working, but you guys just felt a need for a quick 'fix'. I mean - marching into a desert at the end of spring. Total, ridiculous, absurdity. Couldn't even wait 3 months for the summer to get finished! (Ah, but Blix might've proved Saddam had no weapons!)

MSimon
Posts: 14332
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

chrismb wrote:Just been catching up on the rest of this thread. Gee... I kicked off a hornet's nest there, I guess!?

You guys are just so.... American! Good for you. Must be nice to live in a country that you actually feel loyalty towards... and that you feel sure that you're always the good guys and the others are the baddies. Really, it is to be commended.
You Brits would be in decent shape if the citizens felt they owned the country. Better yet if you were proud of your contribution to world civilization. India alone should be eternally grateful. And the seed you left in China - Hong Kong - transformed that nation. And your unruly child - we Americans - well I'm 3rd generation Eastern European and I'm a proud offspring of the British Empire and the Magna Carta.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

MSimon
Posts: 14332
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

chrismb wrote:
MSimon wrote:
There were other ways to remove him.
Care to name one that worked?
I could name one, with absolute certainty of working, but you guys just felt a need for a quick 'fix'. I mean - marching into a desert at the end of spring. Total, ridiculous, absurdity. Couldn't even wait 3 months for the summer to get finished! (Ah, but Blix might've proved Saddam had no weapons!)
Let me see - waiting from 1991 to 2003 for a fix wasn't long enough?

For Americans that is a lot of patience.

And it would not have mattered what Blix had "proved". Oil for Palaces had discredited the UN and our "ally" France. And your politician in pink tights Galloway.
Last edited by MSimon on Wed Mar 17, 2010 8:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

bcglorf
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:58 pm

Needed?

Post by bcglorf »

Saddam was just a 'strong man' in a country that needed a strong man for stability.

Like Hitler was to Germany. Like Stalin was to Russia. The world is better off without them than with them.

As to there were better ways to remove him, I'd add there were better times as well. The first Gulf war being a pretty notable one, and attacking America's failure then makes a lot more sense to me than deriding the removal in 2003. Though if we can choose the time, birth seems as good as any though without hind sight a bit of a bad precedent.

I really don't care for complaints about better ways of removing him. He'd proven his nature for over 2 decades and nobody condemning America's successful removal seems to remember that nobody else had succeeded in that time. Several internal attempts by Iraqi's had been made, but the main result was a few more mass graves in the desert and all the more proof that other ways had failed.

Skipjack
Posts: 6105
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

As I said, Saddam was unbearable once he did not fullfill his purpose anymore. He was, for a while, actually supported by the US and other western nations, because he was against Iran.
Proof of point: Saddam is gone, Iran becomes the next unbearable evil on the map.

chrismb
Posts: 3161
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:00 pm

Re: Needed?

Post by chrismb »

bcglorf wrote: I really don't care for complaints about better ways of removing him. He'd proven his nature for over 2 decades and nobody condemning America's successful removal seems to remember that nobody else had succeeded in that time.
You miss a main point, then. It is unlawful in international law to attack a country just because you don't like the leader.
...
And there are reasons for such a law - because the international community (of the 20th century) realised that, however you swing it, more innocents end up deaded than if you just wait for "a regime change" to happen as a matter of course.

You may defend yourself, or assist another, if attacked. But it was Iraq that was attacked by the Western allies. This was unlawful. Right or wrong is irrelevant, it was unlawful.

bcglorf
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:58 pm

Re: Needed?

Post by bcglorf »

chrismb wrote:
bcglorf wrote: I really don't care for complaints about better ways of removing him. He'd proven his nature for over 2 decades and nobody condemning America's successful removal seems to remember that nobody else had succeeded in that time.
You miss a main point, then. It is unlawful in international law to attack a country just because you don't like the leader.
...
And there are reasons for such a law - because the international community (of the 20th century) realised that, however you swing it, more innocents end up deaded than if you just wait for "a regime change" to happen as a matter of course.

You may defend yourself, or assist another, if attacked. But it was Iraq that was attacked by the Western allies. This was unlawful. Right or wrong is irrelevant, it was unlawful.
Your going to go with international law? Seriously?

Saddam's annexing of Kuwait was a violation of international law. It was a violation so gross that it effectively dissolved and eliminated a UN member state. And as a consequence the international community did what exactly? They made him give it back?

The American no-fly zone over northern Iraq was an overt act of war and a violation of international law. A mighty proud moment in America's history too, do you really think it would be better they'd abandoned the Kurds and abided by international law?

If international law is the standard, then surely your complaints about America's conduct are completely redundant, surely we can trust the international community to deal with America's violations of international law as effectively and completely as the dealt with Saddam's.

I'm unimpressed with that line of argument...

Post Reply