The Devils Advocate

[paulselhi]

In the light of pending events in the gulf, let me pose a hypothetical situation and play the devil's advocate:

A german commander in the second world war has a small town surrounded, in side are battle hardened troops from His Majesty's Parachute Regiment (2nd Battalion 2 Para- ok you can sit down now and stop waving the flag Paul)

Now these guys are the business and more than a match for his troops, they are well dug in and although capture of the town is most probable, there will be heavy casualties on his side if he proceeds with an attack

Nearby is another town comprising of civillians, a large number of which are children

So he gives an ultimatum, surrender now or i order the luftwaffe
to annihalte the second town, killing everyone

The brits answer with their bren guns

The general orders the bombing of the civillian city, 70% fatalities, men women and children

later in his defence the general states that the death of the civilians was worth the price if it caused the brits to surrender thus saving many of his troops from certain death

The question is this:

is this a war crime and if so for how long is the general liable ? 5 yrs? 10 yrs ? 50 yrs? Life ?

Read my next post for some thoughts to ponder over

[TERRELL]

Waiting for next post ol great one

So the saying goes...

The Brits did the right thing. They should not be responsible for the actions of the Germans.

The German commander should be held accountable no matter how long it has been (providing he is still alive).

IMHO.

[paulselhi]

Firstly let me make it clear that i no way support terrorism of any form, i was as disgusted and gutted by the events of 9/11 as all of us were, but please remeber that have seen the atrocities committed here by the IRA and their opponents at first hand for over 30 yrs

I also wish to point out that i am not anti-american or for that matter ani arab, anti- jewish or anti-anyone

I just want people to do a bit more thinking on these matters and not just accept the garbage that is pumped out by newspapers and the TV

OK cleared up now to start the fireworks:

If you believe that the general is a war criminal then so too are the Royal Air Force for the indiscriminate bombings of german cities such as dresden and the fire bombing of hamburg. many thousands of civilains lost their lives here and the man in charge "Bomber" Harris ( aka "Butcher" Harris) openly admitted that the purpose of these raids was not to destroy military targets but to "bring the german populace to their knees" and thus hasten a surrender

the nuclear bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki were conducted along similar lines with a, succesfull, agenda being to hasten the end of the war

are these war crimes ??

We seem to have forgotton that it was not long ago that we all supported sadam in his wars against iran, we even armed him. now all we can put against him ( he has not yet attacked us) is that he supports terrorists

did the US not support and in fact instigate the infamous bay of pigs fiasco, supporting an attempted invasion of cuba by what could legitamely be regarded by some in havanah, as terrorists ?

And what about nicaragua and the support for the contras

Don't forget the years of support given to the IRA

And Israel, for ever crying "foul" whenever there is a terroist act against them and all to quickly forgetting that thier present state was born out of terroism, i am talking here about the Irgun and hagganah

The King David Hotel was the site of the British military command and the British Criminal Investigation Division. It was decided to bomb the hotel on July 22, 1946, the calls were made. The call into the hotel was apparently received and ignored. Begin quotes one British official who supposedly refused to evacuate the building, saying: "We don't take orders from the Jews." As a result, when the bombs exploded, the casualty toll was high: a total of 91 killed and 45 injured. Among the casualties were 15 Jews

this is only one of many terrorist acts conducted by the fledgling state of israel

Many of these terrorists went onto form the israeli government

South Africa, how we all sang and danced when nelson mandela was free ( i know i did !!) but let us not forget that he was an active terrorist operating for the military wing of the ANC (Umkhonto we Sizwe- our people's army) and was imprisoned for the blowing up of an electric power facility (of some description)

the list goes on... what i am trying to do here is to get us to take a step back and look closely before we condem others for the actions we ourselves would take

if the us or uk was attacked by a foreign power we would bomb their country ( by air or by special ops ) so if sadam retaliates by setting bombs off in london or newyork he is only doing what we would do ( and he has had 10 years to get his sleepers in place)

we have nuclear waepons and chemical weapons, in the event of our imminent invasion and certain capitulation i strongly believe we would use on or the other or even both to defend our nations ( see hiroshima), how far would sadam go if he knew he was certain to be annihalted

war crimes?? i can only quote from the film "bridge over the river kwai" " this is not a game of cricket, this is war"

[Ddr]

Your ruminations are thought provoking and will no doubt cause some dissent. I want to point out one thing, though.

War, and the battles of war are acts of hostility, barbarism and butchery clothed in pretty uniforms. These acts remind us of the animal that lies underneath the civility and that the "cave man" that will decimate his neighboring clan when he is threatened is still very much a part of us.

It is all too easy to assign intellectual properties and weigh the moral terpitude while sipping brandy in our warm secure homes. Scholars and historians fill volumes with rationalizations, motivations, and reasons. Yes, the indivdual may interject morality....even in the middle of a conflict, but it all boils down to a few simple things in every war.

War is about taking what is theirs and making it yours. It is proving to them that your culture is the "correct" one. It is about containing or killing them before they kill you. It is about removing all the social mores regarding respect to life, limb, and property in the name of victory. And as it ever was....it is about "to the victor goes the spoils".

So, as you pose your moral question about decidedly immoral acts, the answer lies not in who is right, but in the end, who is left standing and writes the history books.

Dale

[paulselhi]

eloquently put ddr

[Bad Hair Day]

Originally posted by paulselhi
OK cleared up now to start the fireworks:

If you believe that the general is a war criminal then so too are the Royal Air Force for the indiscriminate bombings of german cities such as dresden and the fire bombing of hamburg.

Let's see if I've got it right here..........

You say that if the 'individual' German is a war criminal, then so must be the 'whole' of the RAF.

Please explain your logic here.

many thousands of civilains lost their lives here and the man in charge "Bomber" Harris ( aka "Butcher" Harris) openly admitted that the purpose of these raids was not to destroy military targets but to "bring the german populace to their knees" and thus hasten a surrender

Did those attacks take place before or after the same indiscriminate attacks were launched on the UK?

Should we have sat back and said, "Oh look, another dozen 'Buzz Bombs"?

the nuclear bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki were conducted along similar lines with a, succesfull, agenda being to hasten the end of the war

Would you please describe fully the atrocities carried out on POWs by the Japanese, and their premeditated attack on Pearl Harbour? Just so that we may better understand the reasoning behind the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombings.

are these war crimes ??

Do you believe they were?

We seem to have forgotton that it was not long ago that we all supported sadam in his wars against iran, we even armed him. now all we can put against him ( he has not yet attacked us) is that he supports terrorists

I believe there is an albeit small point about him reneging on the UN mandate regarding weapons inspectors. You were going to mention that in your next post, weren't you?

did the US not support and in fact instigate the infamous bay of pigs fiasco, supporting an attempted invasion of cuba by what could legitamely be regarded by some in havanah, as terrorists ?

I seem to remember that the Russians were about to deploy some ICBMs in Cuba around that time, were they not?
What is your opinion on the Russian's reasoning behind this?

And what about nicaragua and the support for the contras

Yes, what about it? Care to expand?

Don't forget the years of support given to the IRA

By whom? The US government, or certain US citizens?
You're surely not suggesting that the US government funds the IRA are you?

Rather than continue with the rest of your rather specious arguments, I would respectfully suggest that you research the subject matter a little more thoroughly, before posting further on this matter.

Sorry, Paul.

BHD

[alphadesk]

V. Thou Shalt Not Kill.There are no winners only losers. The ones that killed the most just get to make the rules till the next time.

[paulselhi]

that's the sort of response we like....the sign that the DA is working

oh yes YOU do some research, find out what a devils advocate is

i'll answer you questions in the morrow, got a bit of work to do !!!

[Bad Hair Day]

Originally posted by paulselhi
i'll answer you questions in the morrow, got a bit of work to do !!!

If you're going to answer them well, you've got a LOT of work to do...................



BHD

[paulselhi]

sod the work i'll do that later lets go with this bhd

1.

You say that if the 'individual' German is a war criminal, then so must be the 'whole' of the RAF.

who said the whole of the RAF ? did i mention the whole of the luftwaffe in the HYPOTHETICAL scenario ? I mentioned "bomber" harris who was the man who ordered the bombings

2.

Did those attacks take place before or after the same indiscriminate attacks were launched on the UK?

The bombing of civilian targets was started by the RAF in reponse to the occurence when a Luftwaffw bomber got lost and before returning dropped it's payload on the outskirts of london, Hitler was incensed as he had expressley ordered that no civilian targets were to be bombed. The RAF reacted by bombing berlin, thus starting the bombing of civilian areas. this move probably won us the battle of britain as prior to this the germans had been concentrating on airfields and radar and it is estimated we would have only syrvived 2 weeks at the most. The change in tactics gave the RAF the much needed respite to regroup, lick thier wounds and rebuild

3.

Would you please describe fully the atrocities carried out on POWs by the Japanese, and their premeditated attack on Pearl Harbour? Just so that we may better understand the reasoning behind the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombings.

The atrocities carried out by certain members of the japanese army are ( in my mind )atrocities, however the whole idea of this exercise is to ask when do we distinguish between war crimes and legitamate warfare. The fact that the "war crimes" committed by the japanese was discovered after the war does not justify war crimes to be comitted during or after the war by anyone else

If hiroshima is acceptable becaase the japanesse attacked pearl harbour first, then ask yourself what was the justification for england to attack germany, or for that matter to declare war on japan ? keeping our bargain with poland ? and what excuse did america have to declare war on germany ? just helping old chums ?

4. are these war crimes

Do you believe they were?

ahh my personal opion, objection your honour the witness is questioning the prosecution !!

there's the rub, attrocities certainely but war "crimes"? isn't all war a crime and as i said it's not a game of cricket

5.

I believe there is an albeit small point about him reneging on the UN mandate regarding weapons inspectors. You were going to mention that in your next post, weren't you?

and why should he listen to the un anyway, what exactly gives them the right to say israel, pakistan india uk usa france china russia and (many more) can make big bangs with their toy's and he can only make small ones. when has SH actually shown any agression towards us ? we armed and supported him in the war agaist iran. What gives us (small letters) the right to dictate who can and who can't have weapons of masss destruction ? and at the end of the day is it ok to have a bomb that kills, 5,10,100,100 people but not one that kills 200,000 people

UN madate ??? what about israel, they have been ignoring the UN mandate to pull out of the occupied territories since the 70's any sanctions ? and UN pressure ??

6.

I seem to remember that the Russians were about to deploy some ICBMs in Cuba around that time, were they not?

so it's OK for the US to have nuclear missiles in turkey at the time, right in kruschov's back yard but not for the russians to have missiles in cuba ?

7.

And what about nicaragua and the support for the contras

well supporting rebels against a legitimate government, a fine line between supporting freedom fighters and terrorists

8. the US and the IRA ahh a tricky one

By whom? The US government, or certain US citizens?

this could have it's own web site, lets just say that the US and UK government spent years coming to an agreement of how to deal with the funding of the IRA by american supporters and it was never satifactorilly solved, i don't have the figures but i would be interested to find out how many americans were arrested for openly fund raising for the IRA and what measures the government went to stop any support getting to the IRA, but if you really want the dirt on this one i would be happy to do the research

Rather than continue with the rest of your rather specious arguments, I would respectfully suggest that you research the subject matter a little more thoroughly, before posting further on this matter

again ask your teacher what a devils advocate is

[paulselhi]

unfortuntley the us state has not yet stopped the funding of the ira by such groups a NORAID

re the recent bungle in the jungle

Ironically, a revenue-generating operation in Colombia may result in pressure from the Bush administration on Sinn Fein's lucrative fund-raising activities in the United States. The State Department and various other agencies are investigating what the three men were doing when arrested.

The Japan Times

And from the BBC:

Following the emergence of the modern republican movement in 1969, the Provisional IRA quickly turned to its Irish-American supporters for funds and guns.

Ulster Unionist MP Jeffrey Donaldson wants to see the strong measures extended to Noraid, which raises money for the republican party Sinn Fein, which itself has links with the Provisional IRA.

There's mutual regard between the Irish and the Americans Without their funding, the IRA would not have nearly the same potential for violence that it currently has

John McDonagh, chairman of the New York-based Irish Freedom Committee:While supporting what many would see as a terror group, he draws a line between the actions of the IRA and those of the 11 September attackers. "There's no comparison. I don't think it's in the psyche of the Irish to become suicide bombers. The IRA gives warnings before its bombings. What happened here brings it to a whole new level."

Others would point to the fact that an attack by the dissident 'Real IRA' in Omagh in 1998 claimed the lives of 29 civilians, while hundreds of people were killed and thousands maimed in IRA bombings and shootings in more than thirty years of violence. And yet these people and groups are still allowed to ply their trade in the US while congress deliberates, why not round them up now ? isn't that what the world is supposed to be doing with terrorists and their paymasters ??

[Bad Hair Day]

Originally posted by paulselhi

again ask your teacher what a devils advocate is

Why?

You just replied to one..............



BHD

[KenCarlson]

Originally posted by paulselhi
We seem to have forgotton that it was not long ago that we all supported sadam in his wars against iran, we even armed him. now all we can put against him ( he has not yet attacked us) is that he supports terrorists

Not only does he support terrorists, he and his regime ARE terrorists! They invaded a soveriegn nation in 1990, and Sadam and his regime have repeatedly terrorized the Iraqi people for years. The man has chemical and presumably biological weapons and used them without hesitation on his own people. Now, he is on the verge of becoming a nuclear power. It is not just that he supports terrorists - he IS a terrorist, he HATES the US (and the rest of the West) and he has (or soon will have) a big bomb. That is truly a dangerous situation.

If we wait for Sadam and his terroists cronies to detonate a nuke in one of our cities BEFORE we act decisively against him, we're just plain being dumb.

US soldiers and those of our allies might die in an attack. Certainly a lot of Iraqi soldiers will die, and perhaps even some innocent civillians. That is unfortunate. But who is to blame? Is it the US to blame for launching an "unprovoked" war? Or is it Sadam's fault for refusing to let international weapons inspectors come in and search-for and dismantle his nuke program? The bastard's people starve while he spends billions (with a B) on his weapons program, and allows sanctions to cripple his economy and further hurt his people by not capitulating. The international community recognizes the threat and has spoken, and the dude is refusing to cooperate.

Why? Why is all this nuclear weapons stuff so important Sadam? If they guy is so intent on developing a nuke that he'll let his people suffer so much for it, then my guess is that his intentions are ill.

I for one, do not want to wait to see him develop and then detonate a nuke in one of our cities before we as a nation are motivated to act. To do that would be criminally negligent on the part of our Government.

Ken

[paulselhi]

i replied to all your "points" and then added some info on the IRA

To save your teacher the extra workload here is a defintion for you, don't worry i'll translate the latin as well

The advocatus diaboli is a Latin term (advocatus, the called or summoned one, and diabolus, the devil). In the Catholic Church, the role of the advocatus diaboli is to make a strong argument against having someone beatified or canonized (as a saint). This role is the opposite of the advocatus dei, who is supposed to make a case in favor of beatification or canonization.

The term is commonly used in English, "devil's advocate," and is used to refer to making an argument for something you don't necessarily believe in. Instead, you are making the argument to ensure that all sides of a position are heard and also to ensure that the idea you are arguing against is as sound and strong as possible.

Ken

This is the usual response to the Sadam question but lets look at it with a more critical eye:

If sadam was so evil why did the west support him so vehemently in his war against Iran ? Do we always rush to the aid of invaded countries? where was the reaction to russia's invasion of Afghanistan ? oh yes the olympic boycott- powerful stuff. And what exactly has the west done in nearly 50 years since china invaded tibet ? And who makes the rules that say it is ok for one country to invade another (grenada) and illegal for another (kuwait) ?

Not only does he support terrorists, he and his regime ARE terrorists! They invaded a soveriegn nation in 1990

Instead of just taking what your given by the press and tv, delve into the iraq/kuwait issue a bit more, kuwait had been supplying sadam with arms and aid (islamic brotherhood ?) for years during his war against iran ( more islamic brotherhood ) the deal was oil, sadam would pay the kuwaities back with oil, set at a fixed barrel rate, (i don't have the exact figures but for the sake of argument well say $20) now after the war sadam started to repay kuwait then they decided to devalue his oil repayments dramatically his oil was now valued at a ridiculously low amount say $5 a barrell, basically the kuwaitis were taking the piss, SH needed arab support after the iran war, his country's economy had been severley weakend and now kuwait was bleeding him dry so he invaded

The US cried foul !!! and bled from the heart over the plight of the poor beseiged kuwaities, i think not !! since when has the west had any interest in the well being of any arab state ? it is simply that the kuwatiies are lackys of the west, we did not want to loose our grip on their oil

Any way what right does the west have to get involved in other people wars anyway ? defending the weak ? so SH and gaw-daffy can quite legitamately claim that ireland, scotland and the wales are occupied countries and can assist any nationalistic groups with money, weapons and if it came to it bomb england

The kuwaities are themselves accused of numerous human rights abuses, if you want further information i will be glad to give you this or see amnesty international

If the west is so incensed whenever basic human rights are abused why deal with the saudi's ? in saudi it is an imprisonable offence ( and many are in prison) for saudi's to indulge in any form of christian worship, even in private, the saudi's religious book is the koran which quite clearly states that jesus did not die on the cross and in fact faked his own execution, as this is the main tenent of christianity this statement is clearly blasphemy, yet we deal quite happily with the saudi's ( i wonder what would be the reault of some one claiming.. (whoops don't go down this line salman rusdie already did !!)

As far as the nuclear issue goes, nth korea has the bomb, they don't exactly love the US why not invade ? and why should any one love the US any way ? why does the us need to be loved ? ( hey woody can we borrow your psychoanalyst for a decade or two )

If we wait for Sadam and his terroists cronies to detonate a nuke in one of our cities BEFORE we act decisively against him, we're just plain being dumb.

What about libya ? if anyone is trying to build nukes it's ga-daffy
in fact the israelis have bombed his "nuclear" installations without any UN permission, why don't we invade libya ? Libya has been supporting terror groups openly for years and if any one hates the US they do, oh yes- no oil

I might as well toss my incoherent undeducated 2 cents in here.

Our government is a democracy. The actions of the U.S. gov't are meant to be indicative of the consensus of the majority. If the majority doesn't like what the gov't does, then the majority will cause the gov't to change (new elected officials to better represent us, etc etc...ya know...democratic stuff like that). That's what we're all about, right?

When it comes to politics and foreign policies and foreign involvement, I agree completely that you shouldn't listen only to what the media feeds us. Information is out there for those who seek it, for those who care. If you want to take a standpoint and be an active participant in the freedom of democracy, you should educate yourself. But then again, that's just my opinion...you have the freedom to make whatever uneducated decisions you want...including sitting on your arse on election days.

Unfortunately, apathy is like an epidemic among the American people. Most people just don't care...and that's their right. But in my opinion you lose the privilege to a legitimate complaint if you're not doing everything in your power as an American citizen to make things change towards your personal concept of "the better." Sure, people can ***** and moan about the government, but people (a large percentage of people) must not care...certainly not enough to actively voice their opinions, or else things would be different, right? Democracy?

My simple little point is that the objectors to our government's actions must be in the minority, or else we wouldn't be doing the things we do. Good intentions mean absolutely nothing without action. Call/write your representatives, pay close attention to where candidates stand on issues that matter to you if you don't feel like our government is doing the right thing. Discussion is good, but you can't really frown on our government for following the active majority. And it IS a democracy, right?

Now here's where I turn into the crazy patriot...

Even if I may personally disagree with what we do, I know it's in the interest of the people and it's the desire of the majority. If we wage another war, you can bet your *** I'll re-enlist. Combat Engineer. I stand firmly behind our government because I believe in democracy, and I'll stand beside my fellow American soldiers.

And that, ladies in gentlemen, is my humble opinion...originally meant to be a small paragraph.

[KenCarlson]

Before I attempt to go point by point, I thought I'd say that nobody should believe that the US has or will ever act out of a pure sense of benevolence. All of our foriegn policy is geared towards serving our national interests. After all, that is what foreign policy is all about... Working with or against other nations to support OUR interests.

The concept of being self-serving is despised by many philosophies, but it is in the embracing of the concept that America derives its greatness. Our capitalist market economy that noone would argue isn't the biggest and richest in the world, is based on the principle. People are going to act in their self interests - it's human nature - so why try to fight it? It's the same with nations.

Acting in one's one interests is not necessarily a BAD thing. It can be bad, but doesn't have to be - an important point to remember as we continue this debate...

Originally posted by paulselhi
If sadam was so evil why did the west support him so vehemently in his war against Iran ?

Supporting SH was the lesser of two evils. Plain and simple. When the Shah was ousted and religious fundamentalists who are outspoken in their hatred of the US on an ideological basis took over, it was in our best interests at the time to exert foreign policy to bring about a statemate in that war. We didn't cause the war, but we did have a vested interest in preserving stability in the region.

If Do we always rush to the aid of invaded countries?

When it is in our best interests, we usually do. There's nothing wrong with that. We may try to spin it as something more noble, but even if our involvement is indeed "noble" we do it not out of benevolence, but because being "noble" serves our interests. Perhaps it strengthens alliances. Perhaps it earns us respect. Perhaps it makes us feel good about ourselves (feeds our collective ego). All are ends that serve our country, and there is nothing inherently wrong with that.

where was the reaction to russia's invasion of Afghanistan?

That was a calculated non-reaction. Sometimes our best interests are served by letting things be. Did we feel bad for the Afghanis? Sure. Did we support the opposition to the Soviets? YES, because it served us. Did it make sense to go to war with the USSR over their invation? No, because on the balance sheet of best interests, such action had too big a downside.

And what exactly has the west done in nearly 50 years since china invaded tibet?

I'm not familiar with these circumstances, but off the hip, I'd suggest that our non-action was based on similar reasoning to our non-involvement in Afghanistan.

And who makes the rules that say it is ok for one country to invade another (grenada) and illegal for another (kuwait)?

We make the rules. We exercise foreign policy to serve our interests - that's the whole point. In Grenada, we had the safety of citizens at stake, the relative cost of the invasion was small, and the political benefit was large. It made sense - it was in our best interests.

Kuwait was a much bigger deal, but the concept was the same. An aggressive SH, with what I believe was the world's 3rd or 4th largest Army at the time, goping around annexing neighbors is destabilizing to the region. We built an international coallition to smack the Iraqi's back to the border, and in so doing, emerged as the world's defacto champion. We flexed our military might, be forged new alliances, we looked good doing it (helping out the little guy), and the benefit was grand. We served our self interests.

BTW, notice that I've not mentioned oil at all... The world's oil supply is something we need to think about, and at least a factor in our desire for stability in the middle east, but I don't believe for one second that it was the driving factor.

Instead of just taking what your given by the press and tv, delve into the iraq/kuwait issue a bit more...

I've read your explanation three times, and I can't understand your point... Other than the fact that SH was desparate and Iraq took advantrage of a weakened Kuwait... Well, DUH, that's exactly why the coalition was formed to oppose the action!!

It is not in our best interests, nor in the interests of all of our coallition allies, to have desperate bullies feeling like an invasion of a weak neighbor is a good foreign policy choice.

since when has the west had any interest in the well being of any arab state ? it is simply that the kuwatiies are lackys of the west, we did not want to loose our grip on their oil.

Again, the interest was in OUR well-being, not necessarily Kuwait's. It so happened that helping Kuwait served our interests as well. We got a chance to put on a white hat and lead the most powerful coallition in World history against the "evil Sadam"... don't be fooled into thinking that our action were out of benevolence... You'd gotta be naive to belive that - but it sure did serve our interests, and the interests of the world-coallition, to do what we did.

Any way what right does the west have to get involved in other people wars anyway?

I think this is covered ground. I don't think it is so much a "right" for anybody as it is an instance of using foriegn policy to serve ones interests. There are moral limits, of course, and US foreign policy has tended to include "doing what is right" as a key component to be added to the list of self-interests we serve. That, incidentally is the difference between the US serving our interests in the defense of Kuwait and Iraq serving its interests in the invasion of Kuwait. There is a difference - and there is a "moral" component that limits self-serving actions.

so SH and gaw-daffy can quite legitamately claim that ireland, scotland and the wales are occupied countries and can assist any nationalistic groups with money, weapons and if it came to it bomb england

Yes, they can. It is their prerogative. But it is also the prerogative of other nations (such as the US) to object to that support of terrorism and act in the opposite way.

Is the government of the UK an oppressive and totalitarian government? Do they have a horrible human rights record? Should the US fear them as an imperial power that could destabilize the world? Do we have a LONG history of close alliances with the UK? Does the IRA use terrorist tactics that deliberately target innocent civillians? Does the rest of the international community support them such that the US risks international clout in opposing them?

I could gpo on an on about why it makes sense, both morally and in a practical sense, for us to support the UK and opposed the terroist activity of the IRA (and any group that supports them). When the US examines the questions I've listed, it turns out that it is in our best interests to side with our friends in the UK.

The kuwaities are themselves accused of numerous human rights abuses, if you want further information i will be glad to give you this or see amnesty international

Nobody's human rights record is perfect - not even the US. I've already discussed why I believe it served the US interests to come to the aid of the Kuwaitis. But just because we did, it doesn't mean we believe them to have a spotless human rights record. It just means that at the time, it was more important ot our interests to fight Sadam than worry about the Kuwaiti human rights record.

If the west is so incensed whenever basic human rights are abused why deal with the saudi's?

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, it's not the Human Rights that are at the crux of the issue. From a moral standpoint, the Western belief system does, in fact, abhore human rights violations. We'd love to see a world where the value system, particularly pertaining to human rights, is like ours. But when it comes to exercising a foreign policy option, what is considered more than anything is the greater question of our interests.

Sure, we hate the abuses in SA, but I've already said, benevolence does not motivate our foreign policy. Right now, at this point in time, our interests are best served by tolerating or turning a blind eye (from an official standpoint) to the human rights abuses in Saudi. Perhaps the time will come when our interests will be served by a more aggressive objection to such abuses, and when that time comes, perhaps our policy will change. again, there's nuthin' wrong with that approach.

As far as the nuclear issue goes, nth korea has the bomb, they don't exactly love the US why not invade?

Good question. The President has lumped them in to the "evil axis"... Perhaps we should. Right now, though, Iraq is of much more urgent concern. We had 9/11 which proves the willingness of Islamic radicals (note that I don't lump all Muslims in that category) to use tactics that aim to kill mass amounts of civillians. We don't know the details, but our President and SecDef tell us there are links between the terrorist organization that executed the 9/11 attacks and the Iraqi regime.

It's sorta like a risk management system... When you consider the magnitude of the effect of a risk along with its probability of ocurring, the Iraqi threat is more urgent.

Ran out of space... (to be continued)

[KenCarlson]

and why should any one love the US any way ? why does the us need to be loved?

hehehe... Who knows? Being loved makes you feel good. Being loved also makes you safer than being hated - THAT's for sure. Would a group that loves the US detonate a nuke in one of our cities? But what about a sworn enemy with a newly acquired capability to do so? Being loved makes us less vulnerable to terrorism, it strengthens our alliances, and it gives us access to markets for our economy - oh, yeah, and it makes us feel good - ALL things which serve our best interests!

What about libya ? (snip) Libya has been supporting terror groups openly for years and if any one hates the US they do, oh yes- no oil

It is a lot more complicated than a simple matter of oil. Anyone who believes that oil is the single driving factor in our foreign policy in the Middle East or in our war on terrorism, then they're just not paying attention. To be certain, oil is an important commodity in our world's economy, but the Middle East in not the only source for this commodity. Oil is still a fairly abundant resource globally, and it looks like alternative energy sources will be found and the infrastructure in place to use them, long before the world's oil supply is exhausted. Important, yes. A driver, no way.



Geeze!! I gotta get back to work!!!

Ken

[muijefr]

to eat if they please. It is almost impossible for a devils advocate to make a point for they argue without conviction but you, paulselhi, exceed expectations. You sound much more the advocate. Look that up in your latinunium. Your thought process strongly smells of European elitism and the intelligency. Those who can do those who can't litigate. As most of the so called U.S. allies now do. You may live in England but I'll bet you buy your clothes in France.

Having grown up in the era of the Ugly American I say bring our boys home from Europe, let the Europeans get back to the business of killing each other, and start guarding our border from the Mexican invasion that is now occuring.

[KenCarlson]

Originally posted by JohnnyontheSpot
If we wage another war, you can bet your *** I'll re-enlist. Combat Engineer.

I served my time as a Lieutenant with the 14th Combat Engineer Battalion, Fort Ord California... "Rugged!!"

12B's are a rare breed. It's the hardest job in the Military - any specialty in any branch of service!!

Ken

[paulselhi]

buy my clothes in france ?? do me a favour !!!

now what about the koran and blashpemy, or is this getting into dangerous territory? ( looks out of window and pulls the kevlar jacket that bit closer )

[Bad Hair Day]

Originally posted by paulselhi
To save your teacher the extra workload here is a defintion for you, don't worry i'll translate the latin as well

I hope you're as good as Mr. Culwick - My old Latin tutor.

The advocatus diaboli is a Latin term (advocatus, the called or summoned one, and diabolus, the devil). In the Catholic Church, the role of the advocatus diaboli is to make a strong argument against having someone beatified or canonized (as a saint). This role is the opposite of the advocatus dei, who is supposed to make a case in favor of beatification or canonization.

The term is commonly used in English, "devil's advocate," and is used to refer to making an argument for something you don't necessarily believe in. Instead, you are making the argument to ensure that all sides of a position are heard and also to ensure that the idea you are arguing against is as sound and strong as possible.

That's very disappointing. It's so obviously a copy and paste job...........

There's no typo's.



BHD

[paulselhi]

quote, write from memory, translate to spanish, what's the difference ?

[Bad Hair Day]

Originally posted by paulselhi
quote, write from memory, translate to spanish, what's the difference ?

Is this a quiz now?



Well, my best shot would be...........

The middle one is the odd one out, because the other two can be done via the Internet.

BHD

[paulselhi]

spot the odd one out :

Did those attacks take place before or after the same indiscriminate attacks were launched on the UK?
Should we have sat back and said, "Oh look, another dozen 'Buzz Bombs"?

The sword of passive resistance does not require a scabbard.

What was babu-gee's stance on buzz bombs ??

[KenCarlson]

Paul, I'm seeking the devil's reply to my analysis... Any comments on my LONG posts?

K

[Bad Hair Day]

Originally posted by paulselhi

What was babu-gee's stance on buzz bombs ??

At ease, I believe...........

Hands crossed in the small of the back, shoulders square, legs slightly apart and feet at ten to two.



BHD

[paulselhi]

Well from BHD anyway, i shall bring this thread back from the dead - my old pal Simon Magus would no doubt approve

Ken... sorry for not have answered you excellent replies earlier but i have been busy on a large scale network project and have been blatantly grovelling to my hedonistic capitalistic urge to earn money ( by the bucket load )

All of our foreign policy is geared towards serving our national interests. After all, that is what foreign policy is all about... Working with or against other nations to support OUR interests

I think here you have hit the proverbial nail on the head and i could not agree with you more, it is only a shame that this is not realised by more people ( or not admitted by more people)

Supporting SH was the lesser of two evils. Plain and simple. When the Shah was ousted and religious fundamentalists who are outspoken in their hatred of the US on an ideological basis took over, it was in our best interests at the time

Again agreed however this does go to prove the point that US actions around the world are purely enacted for the betterment of the US, as long as her allies serve a purpose then they can feel safe, fall out of favour and you could well be seen as an enemy. This kind of attitude is unfortunately what the rest of the world sees as one of the US,s major faults, everything they seem to do is driven by a "what's in it for us(small letters) attitude"

We make the rules. We exercise foreign policy to serve our interests - that's the whole point.

Well here is a classic reason why so many people around the world show contempt for the US- now i don't actually have contempt my self but i do feel that this is one of the main causes for anti-us feelings, as you say you make the rules, as you see fit, and the rules are always biased towards you self interest, as i think it was alpha desk who said to the victor belong the spoils. Can you not see that this sort of attitude IS going to give fuel to the powers who would like to have their peoples regard the US as an enemy?

Other than the fact that SH was desparate and Iraq took advantrage of a weakened Kuwait..

Quite the contrary, Kuwait took advantage of the weakened economy of Iraq after the iran/iraq war, by forcing Iraq to massively increase it repayments to Kuwait for the military and financial aid it received during that conflict

Nobody's human rights record is perfect - not even the US

Well put and a useful counter to the "SH kills his own people" complaint. How many civil rights activists were murdered in the US ? How many anti Vietnam war demonstrators were Killed in the US ? How many people were killed by the Paras on bloody Sunday? How many people died at Sharpsville and Soweto? Why did we not form a coalition to overthrow the apartheid regime ( rhetorical questions- you have answered all these, it did not serve US or UK interests to do so)

Right now, at this point in time, our interests are best served by tolerating or turning a blind eye (from an official standpoint) to the human rights abuses in Saudi

The nail is well a truly battered on the head

So in summing up you honour:

Ken i applaud you not only for the validity of your points but more so for you honesty in seeing the actions of your govt ( and i suppose ours) for what they are- purely self motivated- the round table lies broken and empty, Excalibur rusts away at the bottom of some long forgotten lake

With all this in mind you must then see what motivates and fuels the passions of your (our) enemies. With the threat of imminent invasion and it would seem total destruction of the Iraqi state can you not see that some if not many of it's peoples would be personally and duty bound to do absolutely ANYTHING to defend or avenge their nation ? If the situation was reversed what would America do- i think nuclear and biological weapons would certainly be used, and after a defeat a continued struggle of resistance and revenge- 9/11 could just be an intro a full attack and destruction of the Iraqi regime would created untold numbers of fanatical “freedom fighters" and "avenging angels"

But perhaps the dice is cast, an interesting aside to your "self interest" ideas, it would be an interesting exercise to see how share prices are affected by these "crisis" moments and couple this with the selling and buying statistics of such firms as arms manufacturers. At a guess i would say that a well versed stockbroker would see some fairly obvious trends here and a bet someone or "something" (spooky) is making a certain killing here (pun intended)

[KenCarlson]

Ken i applaud you not only for the validity of your points but more so for you honesty in seeing the actions of your govt ( and i suppose ours) for what they are- purely self motivated

Please understand that I am/was not being critical of the US - just pointing out the facts. Anyone (or any country) that finds fault in acting in one's self interests doesn't understand human nature.

I am proud of our Government because we are smart enough to act in our own self interests. It is folly to do otherwise. Internationally, we should not be despised for our "smartness", but respected for it. Many totalitarian regimes are too short sighted to even know what is in the best interests of the countries they govern. Other governments (like the Communists and or more liberal socialists) are too bogged down in completely unrealistic ideals to understand how to do what is right.

With all this in mind you must then see what motivates and fuels the passions of your (our) enemies.

No, this doesn't explain anything. When will the idiots, er... idealsists of the world stop being outraged when someone or some powerful country acts in its self-interests? Just because we have our own interests in mind in establishing foriegn policy doesn't mean that thew resulting policy is bad. On the contrary, in most instances, the interests of the US serve the greater good anyway.

You see, we're smart enough to realize that gloabal stability is good - for us and everyone else. True, we don't pursue it for anyone else's express benefit per se, but others certainly do benefit from our self-motivated foreign policy decisions.

With the threat of imminent invasion and it would seem total destruction of the Iraqi state can you not see that some if not many of it's peoples would be personally and duty bound to do absolutely ANYTHING to defend or avenge their nation?

Nope, don't see it. Our beef (and the beef of the coalition that supports us) is with the evil regime that oppresses the people of Iraq. It is not with Muslims. It is not with Kurds. It is not with ythe Iraqi people. It is with Sadam Hussein and his evil regime - and with the potential that exists that that evil regime to inflict great harm on the world with weapons of mass destruction.

Would I blame a Muslim group for "avenging" a war against Saddam? Absolutely!! Do I blame Iraqi citizens for not rising against Saddam? Not really - there is a lot to lose when someone so evil has such a stranglehold of the population. I might pity any Iraqi citizen who is coerced into fighting for Saddam, because they likely do it out of fear or ignorance or both, but there is absolutely no concept of "duty" that should compel any Iraqi to support that monster.

If the situation was reversed what would America do?

This is a silly comparison. And to compare the murder of American civil rights leaders, which was most decidedly NOT a government sponsored/sanctioned activity, to the human rights abuses of Saddam's regime is ridiculous. We've NEVER used chemical or biological weapons on anyone - not even our enemies - much less on our OWN people. For over 50 years, the US govenment has exercised responsible stewardship of the power that comes with weapons of mass destruction. Since their invention, we've used nukes to prevent war (and in the one case of WW II to significantly shorten it). You just can't say the same thing about SH. He's an evil dictator that practises unrighteous dominion over his people, and with a nuclear arsenal, he is a threat to the entire globe.

The concept of "avenging angels" is also something that has been introduced into this debate that I think is a non-issue. Revenge is never a sound policy, and in our history, it has never been used to drive foreign policy. When we react with a measured response to an attack against us, it is never with "revenge" in mind, but rather with the intent to send a message that attacks against us will have consequenses. THIS has a stabilizing deterrent effect, and it has NOTHING to do with revenge. There is a HUGE difference between measured response to assure consequences and the concept of vengence.

paulselhi, in general I think you've either misunderstood my earlier points or taken them out of context. Just because I have no illusions that the US foreign policy makers hold "excalliber" and act out of a pure sense of benevolence doesn't mean that am not 100% proud of how our nation has behaved in this world. Acting in one's self-interests is not an inherently bad thing to do - whether it be in business or in the realm of international politics. Foolish men and foolish governments might make short-sighted decisions to be self serviving (a bad thing), but wise businessmen and wise Governments look at the big picture, making sound decisions that serve self-interests in the long term. Usually, such wise decisions and wise policies have global benefit (or at least positive effects beyond the immediate entity). THAT is how I characterise the US governments self-serving policy decisions.

[paulselhi]

We've NEVER used chemical or biological weapons on anyone - not even our enemies

Agent orange ??? oh of course that was just a weed killer, just a shame there were civillians in the way

It is with Sadam Hussein and his evil regime - and with the potential that exists that that evil regime to inflict great harm on the world with weapons of mass destruction

But don't you see this is exactly the stuff that your enemies leaders are saying about the US, and you have weapons of mass destuction and have shown your are willing and able to use them when it suits you ( and bye the way what IS a weapon of mass destuction ? how many people must die to cross the boundary from acceptable weapon to a horror weapon of mass destruction ?- are you saying a grenade is ok if it only kills 3 people and cruise missile is ok if it only kills a hundred people- and i suppose a squadron on b52's or whatever the latest model is ok coz it will only wipe out a small town)

This is a silly comparison. And to compare the murder of American civil rights leaders, which was most decidedly NOT a government sponsored/sanctioned activity

ahh... so when the national guard opened up on the students of america during the anti vietnam war demonstations they were actually a breakaway unofficial para military organisation and in no way associated with the US govt

Would I blame a Muslim group for "avenging" a war against Saddam? Absolutely

did i say muslim group ? why do you have this belief that most iraqis see themselves as oppressed ? it will be iraqi's, of what ever religious flavour that reek their revenge on the coalition if iraq is destroyed

The concept of "avenging angels" is also something that has been introduced into this debate that I think is a non-issue. Revenge is never a sound policy, and in our history, it has never been used to drive foreign policy

ahh so the mood of america after 9/11 is not one of revenge, the actions in afghanistan and possibly iraq are totally based on what you see as "world stabalization", great to see that you guy's can act in such a calm a controlled manner at this dangerous time

but wise businessmen and wise Governments look at the big picture, making sound decisions that serve self-interests in the long term

well that's ok then, with such astute people in power we having nothing to fear everything is just gonna turn out just dandy

[Ddr]

I might hate myself for rejoining this thread later on, but I felt compelled to add some thoughts.

I am a US citizen. As is the history here, it is a land of government by consensus. That doesn't mean that every citizen agrees with every policy. There will always be dissent here. But, by comparison to many other countries, here in the US, you can feel fairly safe when voicing that dissent.

Yes, tragedies and travesties occur here, too. I know that real evils have been perpetrated here and around the world under the US flag. But to only remember those things and forget the good that has been done is merely scapegoating, propagandizing, and self serving trash. Yes, in an imperfect world, with imperfect people trying to control it, bad things do happen. That is not an excuse. It is just a fact. I just have trouble believing that the US is the evil empire that so many people are indoctrinated into believing it to be.

While it has been pointed out that the US government's policies have been self serving and motivated by geopolitical and economic concerns, what has been said of other things the US as a nation does to uplift this world? It might not be US gov't policy to do true charity, though it does give vast amounts of my tax money to other countries in the name of aid. But more to the point, there are thousands of charities in the United States that are funded by the citizenry that send money and people to all corners of the globe to give medical aid, agricultural aid, education, and simple human caring to people in need. They do these things far from the limelight (except when someone with a gun and a cause decides to use these people as targets). It was just a couple of weeks ago that an american girl ,,,I think she was around 20 years old...was killed in Lebanon. She committed the awful crime of aiding sick christian children. In a foreign land where she had no ties beyond simply wanting to ease suffering, she was killed for being an American and a christian.

I guess since the time when humans were first becoming humans and forming societies, the most vicious and cunning of the "killer apes" survived. Those genes have been passed along.....with the greedy and powerhungry.....or even simply the hungry.....using any means at hand to take something they think should be theirs. Here in the US, this kind of behavior usually is ferreted out and punished as criminal. Sadly, in too many other countries, it is a badge of honor and the only means to power. Yes, they point at US history and call us hypocrites for preaching peace when our own history books show revolution. I can sympathize if they are going to build a society that provides as much opportunity as has mine. I will not be so sympathetic if their means to an end is killing 20 year old American missionaries....... or their final result is a Beirut or some other pearl of culture and commerce that gets pummelled back into the stone age.

I am happy living in a country where the dissenters are not lined up against the wall and shot. I am happy to live in a country that allows the hard working ambitious people from less "user friendly" countries to immigrate, contribute to the economy, and find their own American Dream. And I am happy to live in a country, that despite the necessities of feeding the huge industrial/agricultural machine this nation has become, still has a populace with a conscience that will lend a helping hand to it's neighbors when they are at risk or in need.

So, now that I have gone off on a rant.....what was my point? This is a devil's advocate thread, after all. I guess I am saying that I realize that collectively, people suck and you should not count on the good intentions of anyone to keep you safe. You have to watch your back and be strong to defend yourself against those that hate you just because you have more than they do. But at the same time, you must also remember that you came from "nothing", also, and that sometimes the best way to fix a situation is offer a helping hand instead of raising a fist.

Dale

[zeroseven]

is this topic about Starr?

he he he

[muijefr]

For hundreds of years, pre and post Islam with Ganges Cong thrown in, Europe has been the big dog. I'm including the Roman Empire as European. The Romans "civilized" Europe. Ruled by caesars, kings and queens they were regal and splendid. Rulers of the world when they were not killing one another. And now, one not need partially bright to find volumes of anti American verbiage in British and European news rags (for those who can read). The kings and queens of the earth can see their feet. They want/need to establish themselves, once again, as world leaders. They will not use guns and bombs they will use words. They will not become world leaders by attaching Mexico, again. They must put America in it's place. After all, did not the American fight two wars for them and reconstruct Europe. Do Americans not know their place. Their place obviously is to die for and do Europe's bidding.

European intelligence still thinks of themselves as the big dog. Actually they have become nothing more than the tail and they don't like it at all. They are, you know, descendant of caesars, kings and queens. If we taught world history in our schools Americans would know about the horrendous and heinous acts committed by the European on the human condition, for hundreds of years, and they think they should still be in positions of world leadership. They resent the hell out of America for saying may be not and may be we don't need them or even like them. I give you the French, I give you the Germans, need I say more. Yes, I give you the European intelligence.

[paulselhi]

After all, did not the American fight two wars for them and reconstruct Europe

What history books do you read ? America had no intention of fighting in the second world war after the losses of the first, they SOLD aid to the british and made a healthy profit under lend lease aquiring many bases in europe after the war and a chance to get up nice and close to the old enemy- Russia, your entry into the war was against Japan, Englands decleration of war on japan was then coupled with Amearicas decleration of war on germany. We fought together (Indians, Canadians, South africans, Australians, French, Polish and mamy many more) America did not "win the war" for anyone. You were not the only country fighting the japanese

Without each other we would never have won the war and in fact without russia we would probably have been doomed from the early 1940's

At the end of the day it was european ( and in fact german) expertise that developed your atomic bombs, german expertise that developed your icbm's to protect you from the big red bear

They are, you know, descendant of caesars, kings and queens. If we taught world history in our schools Americans would know about the horrendous and heinous acts committed by the European on the human condition

and where exactly do you think the majority of americans are descended from- antartica ??

are you telling me that you are not taught world history in your schools ??? well that explains a lot then......

[muijefr]

of revisionism. England and Europe were on their collective butts when America entered WW-II and the Marshall Plan reconstructed Europe (for those who have studied world history). And the French were learning to speak German.

First you say we are the devil incarnate then you say we are your children. Which face do you serve. The Manhattan project was built by American's tested in Japan. You must be thinking about our rocket program. The one the Germans developed into a moon landing, or was that done by the British also.