If the left had its way

[Tim56]

Then Saddam would still be in power, and having his military parades and oppressing his people. Don't you just wish you could turn back the clock, and Saddam would still be in power. Things would be so much better. No, it isn't dictators like Saddam who are the enemy, its the imperialist warmonger dictator George Bush, who deliberately bombs civilians to steal Iraq's oil.

The left is a pathetic, reactionary bunch of intellectual nothings. These useless individuals all claim to support "human rights" but when someone who has violated the human rights of hundreds of thousands of people is toppled, and replaced with a humane, responsible government. And wasn't the left anti-fascist, anti-dictator? Concerned with human rights? Not any more. Anti-American first and foremost, at the expense of any moral principle. Interesting also, that when Iraq was fighting Iran, and Saddam was massacring Kurds, he was an enemy of the left. But when he becomes an enemy of the US, things change. The US, we have to remember, is by far the most evil imperialistic government in the history of the world, and anything they do is inherently evil. So, for the last 12 months, you have had the left doing everything they can to try and keep Saddam in power, from organising protests to international lobbying. All this, you must remember, is in the name of helping the Iraqi people. The same Iraqi people oppressed by Saddam for the last 20 years. Leaving Saddam in power most certainly will help the Iraqi people. Because, we all know, that the Iraqi people wanted so desperately wanted to keep Saddam, and avert the terror that the US would bring,

There is nothing more abhorrent than the willingness of the left to turn a blind eye to an evil dictator, fueled by their contempt of a country which has demonstrated the virtues of democracy and freedom better than any other. The left has demonstrated itself to be one of the greatest groups of contemptible cowards in recent history.

 

[Tim56]

To be fair, there has been a very small minority within the broader left (eg. Christopher Hitchens) who have been able to leave aside hysterical anti-Americanism and actually consider the welfare of the Iraqi people.

 

[DaveW]

Anyone who thinks the left is pro-Saddam needs their head checked.

It's the right who have changed their stance on Saddam.

 

[Tim56]

Re: Re: If the left had its way

Originally posted by DaveW
Anyone who thinks the left is pro-Saddam needs their head checked.

It's the right who have changed their stance on Saddam.

Was it the left who was protesting to keep Saddam in power?

 

[lenny&carl]

If "the left" (I'm not sure or not if I count as one of them,) had it's way, the yanks would not have helped Saddam so much with his rise to power and his war against Iran and his years of despotism, (or half of them, anyhow) so we might not be where we are today.

Now while invading Iraq and removing Hussein certainly brings many benefits, (along with many problems,) only an absolute fool would believe that the well-being of the Iraqi's is the reason why US invaded Iraq. For one thing, they changed their story 3 or 4 times, which isn't a great credibility-builder, plus they're just as gung-ho about supporting despots when it suits them, including SH for about a decade, during which time he was commiting many of the atrocities they now villify him for.

Hussein may have many interesting things to say about the '80's, but I suspect we won't be hearing them.

 

[DaveW]

Re: Re: Re: If the left had its way

Originally posted by Tim56
Was it the left who was protesting to keep Saddam in power?

Nope. I don't recall a desire to keep Saddam in power being the motivation for any protests.

 

[GuruJane]

Re: Re: Re: Re: If the left had its way

Originally posted by DaveW
Nope. I don't recall a desire to keep Saddam in power being the motivation for any protests.

Don't you Dave?

At the time i asked the question on this board: why were there NOT any placards at the demos calling on Saddam to disarm? Why didn't any of the speakers call on Saddam to disarm? I commented then that the only poster carriers i'd seen seemed to be calling on the US to disarm, not Saddam.

The answers i got on this board, almost to every post. argued it was up to the US to disarm if it was going to require Saddam to do so. (!) Moral equivalence it is called.

After the demos Saddam issued a public statement warmly thanking the worldwide protestors. At which point a whole heap of western "human sheilds" set forth to defend the "Iraqi people" against attack to overthrow Saddam and the Baathist regime.

Don't you remember any of that?

It is now emerging that it was the anti war protests and French/German opportunism that fed Saddam's delusion he could retain power and mainatined his rejectionist policy towards UN compliance, partic resolution 1441.

Ergo there was a war.

As a result a lot of lives have been lost unnecessarily, mostly Iraqi.

 

[RogerC]

Hey Tim, speaking of hypocrisy, "...when Iraq was fighting Iran, and Saddam was massacring Kurds, he was an enemy of the left." He was also a friend of the US.

Here's another one: "There is nothing more abhorrent than the willingness of the left to turn a blind eye to an evil dictator." But not, apparently, so abhorrent when it is the US turning the blind eye while the atrocities are actually happening, rather than years after the event.

The biggest problem with the Right (that's "true-leftist" for you, Jane), is that it is so insistent on telling the left what the left is thinking. We were born with two ears and one mouth for a reason, Tim. Try to listen instead of forcing your interpretation on people.

And Jane, love your work, as always. It's looking increasingly as if Saddam did disarm. What were we fighting for again? If he did, and there is a certain amount of responsibility incumbent on the US to prove this point before railing at the European countires and sending the bombs over - something about Iraq being an imminent threat as I recall - I can't see resolution 1441 being relevant to anything in the real world.

No doubt all this talk brands me as a neo-Baathist or something. Though in truth, I'd just be happier not being lied to by my government and the US.

 

[Lionel Lyon]

Originally posted by Tim56
The left has demonstrated itself to be one of the greatest groups of contemptible cowards in recent history.

Tim, beware, the Right was against this war too. The neo-conservatives are not the Right, but Leftists like GJ and HF dressed in Republican Party drag. There is nothing at all conservative about their internationalist utopianism. So we got Saddam--good! But also, big deal. The US has such an ascendancy at the moment, it can achieve virtually any short term goal, no doubt. But at what cost? What can all this do to America in the long term? Conservatism means being very careful about committing to such grand schemes that squander personnel and hard gained resources for the sake of some fleeting theory of world order. The neocons' grandiose reveries of conquest and "democratization" of the ME may well run the US into the ground. They want war with just about every country in the region, they're against rump Europe, they're now turning on Russia. How far do they think that they can push it?

I live here, and I genuinely feel for this country, so don't try to call me anti-US. As one with admittedly (not neo-) conservative leanings, I was pulling for Bush in 2000, I was over the moon when he won, and I supported the decision to go into Afghanistan (even though I have two friends in the 101st who served there--one since being transferred to Baghdad ), because bin Laden had attacked us and had to be punished/eliminated. I even still respect Bush as a person, though I think he has made some awful mistakes in the last year. The Iraq War, though, always struck me as a concoction and an uncalled-for exercise, having no direct connection to 911 (various convenient news releases of late notwithstanding) and not clearly in US interests. There seemed to be many other, more measured, ways of dealing with the Iraq problem. Anyway, it's all academic now. Constantly presenting ourselves with faits accomplis, we have left ourselves no other choice but to get in deeper and deeper. This is not a question of cowardice, but prudence in foreign affairs. You may call what I say unimaginative and lily-livered, but I cannot ignore the weight of history.

Anyway, I look at some of the debates on here (in which I too have participated in the past 6 months), and recall Kissinger's alleged saying about "academic politics being so vicious precisely because the stakes are so small." A good saying, I think.

 

[Joel]

Originally posted by lenny&carl
If "the left" (I'm not sure or not if I count as one of them,) had it's way, the yanks would not have helped Saddam so much with his rise to power and his war against Iran and his years of despotism, (or half of them, anyhow) so we might not be where we are today.

Hussein may have many interesting things to say about the '80's, but I suspect we won't be hearing them.

Oh, for crying out loud. That was twenty years ago, under different administrations, and in a different time. At the time, fighting Iran was in the interests of the US (and with reason).

Countries will always act in their own interests, but it is all relative to that place in time. In hindsight (and aint it a wonderful thing), the US stuffed up twenty years ago, and they will probably stuff up 100,000 times more over time. Can I ask, how were the US to know that Iraq qould invade Kuwait? For that matter, how could the US predict their actions could turn out for the worse?

My question is, how would we NOT have been in the same situation today if the US hadn't of helped Iraq in the 1980s? Additionally, why aren't countries such as France held accountable for selling the same sort of stuff the US did to Iraq?

Well that wouldn't suit your story. That is my 2 cents, and personally, I'm not going to debate this any further, there is no point.

 

[Joel]

Re: Re: If the left had its way

Originally posted by Lionel Lyon
T

Anyway, I look at some of the debates on here (in which I too have participated in the past 6 months), and recall Kissinger's alleged saying about "academic politics being so vicious precisely because the stakes are so small." A good saying, I think.

I'd agree with that.

 

[Hawkforce]

It's about time the RIght started tearing each other apart on this...

Maybe the Pseuds and the Isolationists can form a new political party?

I hear Galloway's just started one up - unfortunately one of his potential sponsors just suffered an alarming reversal of fortune...

 

[MightyFighting]

Re: Re: If the left had its way

Originally posted by Lionel Lyon
Tim, beware, the Right was against this war too. The neo-conservatives are not the Right, but Leftists like GJ and HF dressed in Republican Party drag.

The difference between neo-cons and the mainstream left is that most lefties know cynical empire-building when we see it. We will oppose the enlargement of this American empire because the inevitable affects of the concentration of power (even when concentrated in a democracy) are far worse than the small number of local thugs they may overthrow.

It must be remembered that they have placed more of these thugs in power than they have deposed. I would be the first to celebrate if this ceased to be American foreign policy, but I won't be holding my breath. The reason they misuse power is that they have too much of it.

 

[Tim56]

Re: Re: If the left had its way

Originally posted by Lionel Lyon
Tim, beware, the Right was against this war too. The neo-conservatives are not the Right, but Leftists like GJ and HF dressed in Republican Party drag. There is nothing at all conservative about their internationalist utopianism. So we got Saddam--good! But also, big deal. The US has such an ascendancy at the moment, it can achieve virtually any short term goal, no doubt. But at what cost? What can all this do to America in the long term? Conservatism means being very careful about committing to such grand schemes that squander personnel and hard gained resources for the sake of some fleeting theory of world order. The neocons' grandiose reveries of conquest and "democratization" of the ME may well run the US into the ground. They want war with just about every country in the region, they're against rump Europe, they're now turning on Russia. How far do they think that they can push it?

I live here, and I genuinely feel for this country, so don't try to call me anti-US. As one with admittedly (not neo-) conservative leanings, I was pulling for Bush in 2000, I was over the moon when he won, and I supported the decision to go into Afghanistan (even though I have two friends in the 101st who served there--one since being transferred to Baghdad ), because bin Laden had attacked us and had to be punished/eliminated. I even still respect Bush as a person, though I think he has made some awful mistakes in the last year. The Iraq War, though, always struck me as a concoction and an uncalled-for exercise, having no direct connection to 911 (various convenient news releases of late notwithstanding) and not clearly in US interests. There seemed to be many other, more measured, ways of dealing with the Iraq problem. Anyway, it's all academic now. Constantly presenting ourselves with faits accomplis, we have left ourselves no other choice but to get in deeper and deeper. This is not a question of cowardice, but prudence in foreign affairs. You may call what I say unimaginative and lily-livered, but I cannot ignore the weight of history.

Anyway, I look at some of the debates on here (in which I too have participated in the past 6 months), and recall Kissinger's alleged saying about "academic politics being so vicious precisely because the stakes are so small." A good saying, I think.

The isolationist, as I will call it, reason that you present for not going to war is the only reason against it, and what you put up is a reasonable point, but the net benefits still outweigh it IMO.

 

[MightyFighting]

Re: Re: Re: If the left had its way

Originally posted by Tim56
The left has demonstrated itself to be one of the greatest groups of contemptible cowards in recent history.

There is nothing brave about sending other people to war.

 

[pazza]

Once again Tim, your support for the right has tarnished a wonderful moment.

We will never truly know what the left would have done, but, I dare say it would have involved negotiations and peace agreements.

There would be none of these reprisals and revenge attacks and I even think that disarming the Iraqi people would have been easier if this course was followed.

One thing would have definitely happened had it gone this path..casualties would have been limited.

 

[Pessimistic]

Let's not forget the whole exercise was about replacing iraqs old trading partners (Russia, France etc ) with new ones (the coalition). Everything bears this out. Saddam is purely incidental. I believe saddam was about to be replaced by one of his sons anyway, and they were about to make the euro the primary oil trading currency)

While the US obviously tolerated saddam (indeed supported him) they couldn't stomach one of his sons in power so on with the war.

Conveniently, they were killed.

The treatment of saddam will be interesting.

 

[BlueMark]

Originally posted by Tim56
Then Saddam would still be in power, and having his military parades and oppressing his people. Don't you just wish you could turn back the clock, and Saddam would still be in power. Things would be so much better. No, it isn't dictators like Saddam who are the enemy, its the imperialist warmonger dictator George Bush, who deliberately bombs civilians to steal Iraq's oil.

The left is a pathetic, reactionary bunch of intellectual nothings. These useless individuals all claim to support "human rights" but when someone who has violated the human rights of hundreds of thousands of people is toppled, and replaced with a humane, responsible government. And wasn't the left anti-fascist, anti-dictator? Concerned with human rights? Not any more. Anti-American first and foremost, at the expense of any moral principle. Interesting also, that when Iraq was fighting Iran, and Saddam was massacring Kurds, he was an enemy of the left. But when he becomes an enemy of the US, things change. The US, we have to remember, is by far the most evil imperialistic government in the history of the world, and anything they do is inherently evil. So, for the last 12 months, you have had the left doing everything they can to try and keep Saddam in power, from organising protests to international lobbying. All this, you must remember, is in the name of helping the Iraqi people. The same Iraqi people oppressed by Saddam for the last 20 years. Leaving Saddam in power most certainly will help the Iraqi people. Because, we all know, that the Iraqi people wanted so desperately wanted to keep Saddam, and avert the terror that the US would bring,

There is nothing more abhorrent than the willingness of the left to turn a blind eye to an evil dictator, fueled by their contempt of a country which has demonstrated the virtues of democracy and freedom better than any other. The left has demonstrated itself to be one of the greatest groups of contemptible cowards in recent history.

I love how the Right (The Wrong!?!) rewrite history.

Also Tim I will let those in the Military who opposed the war but still did thier duty, that they are comtemptible cowards.

 

[Weaver]

Originally posted by RogerC
The biggest problem with the Right (that's "true-leftist" for you, Jane), is that it is so insistent on telling the left what the left is thinking. We were born with two ears and one mouth for a reason, Tim. Try to listen instead of forcing your interpretation on people.

The Right have no idea or vision of their own, they define themselves entirely in response to the left. So much so that they have to invent what the left believes so that they can respond to it. Frequently the right like to accuse the left of not recognising the fall of communism, well the left have moved on but it sure shook up the right not knowing what they are oppossed to now. Thank God for a war on terror to give them some sort of compass.

 

[Tim56]

I love how the Right (The Wrong!?!) rewrite history.

Also Tim I will let those in the Military who opposed the war but still did thier duty, that they are comtemptible cowards.

Intellectually, yes.

Let's not forget the whole exercise was about replacing iraqs old trading partners (Russia, France etc ) with new ones (the coalition). Everything bears this out. Saddam is purely incidental. I believe saddam was about to be replaced by one of his sons anyway, and they were about to make the euro the primary oil trading currency)

While the US obviously tolerated saddam (indeed supported him) they couldn't stomach one of his sons in power so on with the war.

Conveniently, they were killed.

The treatment of saddam will be interesting.

Of course, there is not the remotest evidence to prove your belief that one of his sons was going to take power, so we can chuck that in the leftest bull.... basket, which is overflowing. Whilst the US didn't oppose Saddam until 1990, what does this prove? This proves that when the US sees the actions of a brutal dictator, invading other countries and oppressing his people, they are prepared to oppose him. It also proves, when a brutal dictator becomes anti-American, the left, directly or indirectly, support him. If Russia or France don't get their loans paid back, stiff. Next time they should think about whether they should aid dictators.

Once again Tim, your support for the right has tarnished a wonderful moment.

By tellling it like it is, and exposing the left for the hypocrites they are?

We will never truly know what the left would have done, but, I dare say it would have involved negotiations and peace agreements.

I dare say it would have involved keeping Saddam in power.

There would be none of these reprisals and revenge attacks and I even think that disarming the Iraqi people would have been easier if this course was followed.

But, see, nothing would have happened. Saddam would have stayed in power, and continued his brutal regime. "Negotiations and peace agreements" aren't worth they paper they're written on. Surely Munich would have taught you that.

One thing would have definitely happened had it gone this path..casualties would have been limited.

Actually no. Saddam would have stayed in power and continued on his genocidal road to the destruction of Iraq and his people, taking the lives of even more Iraqis with him.

There is nothing brave about sending other people to war.

Bravery comes in many different forms. Taking a bold, correct decision is one of them.

The difference between neo-cons and the mainstream left is that most lefties know cynical empire-building when we see it. We will oppose the enlargement of this American empire because the inevitable affects of the concentration of power (even when concentrated in a democracy) are far worse than the small number of local thugs they may overthrow.

God forbid we should place power in the hands of democratic, libertarian governments! We need brutal, repressive regimes to oppose the United States, and let the consequences be damned!

It must be remembered that they have placed more of these thugs in power than they have deposed.

Taking your position that the US has dealt with evil regimes in the past, surely, now that the US has deposed a brutal, repressive dictator, this would be cause for celebration?

 

[RogerC]

It may take Tim a while to catch up to the rest of us. Be patient with him.

 

[Mr Q]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If the left had its way

Originally posted by GuruJane
At the time i asked the question on this board: why were there NOT any placards at the demos calling on Saddam to disarm? Why didn't any of the speakers call on Saddam to disarm? I commented then that the only poster carriers i'd seen seemed to be calling on the US to disarm, not Saddam.

And you completely ignored the arguments made in favour of your Saddam-supporting theory.

The protests were not about Saddam or the right or wrong of Saddam's behaviour. It was about the perceived wrongness of the US et al's actions in defying the accepted international body and attacking another sovereign country.

As I've pointed out to you on several separate occasions, protesting about Saddam was entirely pointless - Saddam wasn't elected, and is not resident in the West, so protesting his activities would not realistically have any effect on what he did. However protesting against US action and Australian involvement may have an effect on that; a positive effect if you did not believe in the justifications and basis for the war.

However you (and many of the pro-war faction) find it easier to tar all anti-war people as pro-Saddam as it makes it easier to ignore the arguments being made. Its a bull**** statment and you know it.

 

[Tim56]

Originally posted by RogerC
It may take Tim a while to catch up to the rest of us. Be patient with him.

Obviously, there is no kind of critique of what I have said, because you know it is all true.

 

[Fevola4God]

Originally posted by Weaver
The Right have no idea or vision of their own, they define themselves entirely in response to the left. So much so that they have to invent what the left believes so that they can respond to it. Frequently the right like to accuse the left of not recognising the fall of communism, well the left have moved on but it sure shook up the right not knowing what they are oppossed to now. Thank God for a war on terror to give them some sort of compass.

What an absurd statement to make. The right have no idea or vision? Do you have ANY idea of what the 'right' is? It's a group of individuals who believe in a free market and democratic society where individuals have the ability to make choices for their own welfare. They believe in the gradual removal of tariffs, and the subsequent increase in quality and decrease in prices. They believe in the ability for an individual to choose his education and profession without the firewalls and obstacles of government to stop him.

That is the classic right wing thinker, and that is what builds the foundations for right wing philosophy. Many who would claim to be 'right' or 'conservative' may institute or condone policies that conflict with classical rightist philosophy. Don't blame it on the 'right', blame it on the individual.

I also find it amusing that you speak as if the right is merely a machine to attack the left. Yet, as I vistit ANY bookshop, I find that easily more than half of the political/current affairs books are from leftist authors attacking the right.

Your poor understanding on what makes a true right wing thinker comes to no suprise however. Obviously due to your leftist bias, you have little time to study or read the works of true right wing thinkers, and are only left with mainstraim conservative politicians or journalists (i.e Andrew Bolt) to form an actual opinion.

Even we can agree on the fact that the world is evolving into a more globalised society (a society of the 'right'. if you will). Trust me, there is no coincidence that at the same time, living standards around the globe, both in developing and industrialised nations, are increasing.

Have a nice day.

 

[Tim56]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If the left had its way

Originally posted by Mr Q
And you completely ignored the arguments made in favour of your Saddam-supporting theory.

The protests were not about Saddam or the right or wrong of Saddam's behaviour. It was about the perceived wrongness of the US et al's actions in defying the accepted international body and attacking another sovereign country.

As I've pointed out to you on several separate occasions, protesting about Saddam was entirely pointless - Saddam wasn't elected, and is not resident in the West, so protesting his activities would not realistically have any effect on what he did. However protesting against US action and Australian involvement may have an effect on that; a positive effect if you did not believe in the justifications and basis for the war.

However you (and many of the pro-war faction) find it easier to tar all anti-war people as pro-Saddam as it makes it easier to ignore the arguments being made. Its a bull**** statment and you know it.

No war = Saddam in power.