Now that mass-murder Saddam Hussein has been captured, what will you be playing on your system to celebrate? Quite a few tunes come to mind, but I think I'll start with Tesla's "Modern Day Cowboy."
I was afraid that I may have gotten too overzealous with my initial comments in this thread. It's great to hear such wise words from you guys.
One thing that still erks me to this day is the policy of silence the Japanese government uses when confronted with dark areas in their history such as WWII crimes. My Dad receives a daily Japanese language newspaper, and in the english section I occasionally see articles about the "comfort women", women from China and Korea who were abducted and made to serve Japanese soldiers as sex slaves. The Germans have repeatedly apologized and made massive reparations to Jewish families and Israel for Hitler's crimes. I was raised in a "Japanese Way" to be honorable and face up to my mistakes, so when I see modern Japan sixty years since WWII unable to issue any kind of apology for so many of the wrongs committed then it makes my blood boil and I feel ashamed.
You folks are so right about separating the everyday people from the few in power who make the decision to go to war. Case in point.
My father was shot down twice during the war, so I'm quite fortunate to exist and be able to post in the Audiogon forums! A few years after my father moved to the US he was contacted by a man saying he had some how located my father through the War Department and he in fact was one of the guys that shot my Dad down. My Dad flew reconnaissence missions for the Japanese Navy in areas such as the Aleutian Islands in the north Pacific and Rabaul in the south. On one of these missions he was shot down and survived two days floating in the middle of ocean with his wounded navigator until a Japanese sub located them. My Dad often jokes that if he didn't have photos and information the Navy wanted they might have left him bobbing up and down like cork.
The fellow who contacted my Dad was a lawyer from New York who happened to be in Los Angeles and was wondering if my Dad would like to meet for dinner. I don't know if I was born at the time but my Mom went along and they had a very nice time. My father said this man from New York was apologetic, but my father really had no ill feelings. As with some of the other WWII my dad met they all agreed that they were only doing their job for their country and there was no personal animosity at all.
I realize the way one feels about their war experience largely depends on how traumatic it was, so I find it interesting that Vietnam veterans seem to harbor much more resentment. It could have to do with the way the two wars were viewed and treated by the public at the time.
I can remember being a young kid at my parent's dinner parties and having some WWII vets there. Most were my dad's friends from his architectual firm and had served the US military in the south pacific and Europe. However, my favorite "uncle" was a guy named Ted who served under General Rommell in the tank brigade in north Africa. This was one funny and fun guy to be around! Can you imagine a German soldier, a couple US army guys and a Japanese pilot having a family get together? Pretty neat stuff.
Lugnut, I often forget your theory of how money runs the world and I'm jolted back into focus when I see preferential treatment given to firms like Haliburton. The way the bidding was conducted and post war rebuilding planned, it makes you think the whole purpose for chasing Saddam into a hole was just so we could rebuild the damn country. It doesn't seem to make sense since it cost so much to conduct the war in the first place.
I guess I'll throw my 2 cents in on this - what the hell, it's still a free country, right? The people who say this Iraq war was based on oil are probably right. Those who claim the CIA trained Osama and helped out Saddam are right too. I think the US also helped Fidel Castro get to power along with certain people in South America who commited atrocities. Weird foriegn policy things happen when you live in a country (the US) where leadership changes are frequent and public opinion flip flops on different issues. All that said, let's remember that Saddam was a guy who killed hundreds of thousands of people, mostly his own during his 30+ years in power. A guy like that sitting on 25% of the world's oil had the means to buy just about any military weaponry he wanted, given enough time. For those who think that the US sanctions were responsible for the death of thousands of Iraqi children, give me a break. What money Saddam did get from oil sales he did not spend on medicine or aid to his citizens (like he was supposed to) but rather continued to spend on his military, lavish lifestyle and even more outlandish spending on the construction of Mosques - to hell with building hospitals, buying medicine or investing in infrastructure. The guy was mad and didn't give a second thought to the suffering of his people - even when confronted with the FACT that he would be attacked by the US! Further to the east of him is another mad man by the name of Kim Jung Ill, North Korea's "beloved leader" who's people are dying by the bushel daily for lack of food, while he still maintains a "million man army", has schoolkids revere him as a God and basically wants to blackmail the US by expecting us to pay him for NOT building nuclear arms. Some say we should take the deal, even though Clinton made the same deal and he obviously broke that! There are tyrants all across the globe who deny food, medicine and basic freedoms to their people. Ususally they rule in corners of the world that, unfortunately for the residents of those countries, don't have any stategic or "threat value" to the US.
The UN is not and never has been consistent or decisive, save the 1991 Gulf War. The UN has always turned a blind or reluctant eye to atrocities in the world. Think Idi Amian (sp?) in Africa, Poppa Doc in Haiti, the Khemer Rouge in Cambodia, Rowanda, Kosovo, China under Mao, etc.,etc. Where was the UN while these dictators and "evil" governments were executing their populations? Nowhere. Where was the US? Nowhere. Why? Because people who hold opinions like the ones expressed here about the US "shouldn't go it alone without the UN" or "this is all about oil" or the "US is an empire and bully of the world", etc., etc. It is because of these sentiments that the US is reluctant to take action. The UN? Count how many times they've taken action to stop the killing and repression worldwide!
It is unfortunate that we live in a world where these kinds of crimes against humanity are commonplace. Lets be realistic, world peace is a pipe dream. It seems to me however that even the most jaded and "peace loving" among us can still recognize a brutal dictator - history has shown us who and what they are along with their M.O.'s on the world stage. The danger in doing NOTHING when these people are in control of either a vast natural resource (like oil) or technological capacity (nuclear arms) is too great a threat to look the other way. I think it is a reality that wars will be fought in the future to stop just such a dictator or government before the outcome becomes catastrophic on a global scale! What if the "great powers" had invaded Germany and stopped Hitler after the capture of the Sudatenland, Checklosovakia or the "integration" of Austria instead of waiting years after finally attacking Poland? The answer? Several million less deaths! Did I agree with the invasion of Iraq? Not entirely and I wish more countries would have been on board. But at the end of the day, the sanctions in place were deteriorating and were in fact the bargaining chip Saddam was using, cooperation with the search for WMD in exchange for the lifting of those sanctions. If he didn't have any (and he probably didn't) he could show the world, have the sanctions lifted and then have his scientists dig up the records, blueprints and plans and reconstitute those programs. By then it would have been way too late! And if Saddam got old and died before all the pieces fell into place, then we could have looked to his children (models of society that they were) to finish his vision. It really bothers me when people can't learn lessons from history. It could very well be that the US prevented the future death of millions on both sides by the actions taken earlier this year. Those that would rather say that this was fabricated to take the heat off of Dick Cheney, who after getting into office had to liquidate (or put into a blind trust) all his interest in Halliburton needs to re-examine the facts.
It always amazes me when the US gets such a bad rap around the world, but especially in Europe, for its decision to throw out the Iraqi dictator. How come you never hear the same world outcry about the policies of N. Korea or Iraq (pre-GW2)? People seem to be more set to burn an effigy of Bush than they are of Kim Ill or Saddam Hussein!
I do not agree with all of the things this country does nor have I been 100% behind George Bush. That said, I am proud we have a leader who is willing to call these regimes out and put them "on notice". The guy has the balls to lead not look at polls. I am less proud to see the other "world leaders" sit idley by. If people accuse Bush and the US about being in it for the money, they should pay closer attention to other governments and leaders who choose to keep the status quo, make deals (and money) with these world despots and not make any waves. Those are truly the characters who are in it for the money. Probably why Germany and France were so against an Iraq invasion in the first place. Did anyone see the list of all the German and French companies that did business with Saddam? We can throw the Russians in that same lot as well! The US may not always be right but our motives (thank God) aren't even in the same league as those of the Iraq's and North Korea's out there! It's about time we all acknowledge that there is good and evil in the world and stand up for what is right, not for what is popular!
As for my song; "Daylight has Broken" by the muslim activest fromerly known as Cat Stevens! May there be a little less suffering in the world this year (I know there will be in Iraq)! Tony
Ah, but Gunbei, the money to conduct the war comes from your tax dollars. Haliburton may not even pay any tax??? The money to rebuild Iraq will also come from your tax dollars and make Haliburton and its owners even richer than they are now.
GWB and his buddies may simply be trying to ensure that the conditions for winning re-election are in place for 2004. Money wins elections, among a small number of other things. Corporate contributions make up a huge proportion of funds available to run campaigns, no? How do you ensure you get the greatest corporate contributions? Its all pretty abysmal...
In the end, all of this may be about a small group of people wanting the power to rule the strongest nation on Earth for another four years. Daddy Bush only had one term - a humiliation to be erased by the prodigal son? Although its arguable about how far he could have gone in 1991, Daddy did not really finish the job in Iraq at that time. Is the son being driven to redress a wrong, one that was obviously not of his Daddy's doing? I really don't like to sound so skeptical.
Hey Slappy, you better be shakin' in your boots, 'cause the Canadian Navy has these Sea King choppers that could really cause havoc if they were unleashed on the US... That is, by falling out of the sky onto unsuspecting Americans. :-) The Canadian military is a shadow of its former self, and may be another reason why this country didn't commit to the coalition of the willing in Iraq. However, there are some 2,000 Canadian troops on the ground in Afghanistan stationed near Kabul.
It may be that a lot of the UN's indecisiveness during the '90s had to do with the intransigence of Security Council members and dues owed to the UN by one of its strongest and wealthiest members. It may appear that some leaders sit idly by, but what you don't see are the diplomatic efforts to bring about change in countries that have less than democratic leadership/government.
How does one decide who should be invaded and toppled and who should not? What of the sovereignty of nations or the international/multilateral agreements in place all over the world? If, for example, Great Britain decided to invade France because it felt the President or the regime in power needed to be deposed, the rest of the NATO membership would be obliged to come to the defence of France.
Sure, Saddam is evil incarnate, one of the worst seen since WWII, but lacking proof positive of WMDs, should he have been deposed in a more or less unilateral fashion? Looking at it from another angle, even if the existence of WMDs were proven, who's to say Iraq should not have the capacity to develop nuclear capability, whether for military or civilian purposes? Well, perhaps the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (not sure if Iraq was ever a signatory), which may not have existed if the UN did not.
Sure the UN has a sketchy history, but it is the member nations, and particularly those on the Security Council, that make the decisions. Right or wrong, the US and its coalition members failed to convince other Security Council members of the case for invading Iraq. Should the UN and the Security Council simply acquiesce to an influential and powerful member simply because the latter says so?
If you don't like the way your neighbour treats his child, what do you do? Do you go over and beat him senseless? Or do you call the cops and appropriate authorities to investigate? They investigate and maybe lay charges. Those charges are presented before the court and the judge or jury decides whether to punish. Kind of like the UN, except that if the members of the UN can't agree (e.g. on the results of the investigation/weapons inspectors in Iraq) or if they don't provide the UN with the means to act (e.g. a clear mandate and sufficient means/forces in Rwanda), well there's not much it can do.
Bravo, Treyhoss and Mghcanuck! It never ceases to amaze me how complicated, yet at the same time how simple affairs like these are.
I agree as a whole and without the advantage of knowing the alternate outcome [if we had done nothing] that it was a very good thing Saddam has been removed. Just think what might have been if Gore was President when 9/11 went down and how events would have played out afterward.
We may be viewed by some nations as being quick-on-the-trigger cowboys, but the way Germany and France acted has left a bad taste in my mouth. I don't blame the Bush Administration for freezing out those countries from the post-war rebuilding contracts that tried to prevent a UN mandate for invading Iraq. It sure seemed that German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder let his personal dislike of Bush dictate Germany's stance on this issue. I thought French President Jacques Chirac liked GW? I heard that prior to giving a speech blasting the US position that Chirac's people would contact the Bush people and let them know what was going to be said in advance. With strong French public opinion against the invasion, it probably would have been political suicide for Chirac to back Bush.
So what are these Sea Kings and should I worry about them falling on me in California? Oh, and Mghcanuck, I heard the US military was VERY impressed with the Canadian sniper units stationed in Afghanistan.
I think the CIA should pipe "It's an itzy bitsy teeny tiny yellow polka-dot bikini" into SH's cell 24/7. On every tweny-fourth hour, they should play "They're commin to take me away, ha ha".
That will make him talk., Or should I say....'sing?"
I believe the most difficult problems are built upon extremely simple foundations. People (like many animals)tend to gravitate to their own ilk, often to the exclusion (and sometimes harm) of others.
The rise of families and social and governmental systems has at it's core been an effort over many thousands of years to "protect our own". In some instances these structures have also sought to reign in our most harmful tendencies and cultivate a "civil" structure that accepts diversity.
Who's been totally successful? No One, of course.
But it seems to me that some societies get it more right than others, if your yardstick is political, personal, and intellectual freedom. My personal belief is that our far from perfect society gets it more right than many others.
Hate Bush? Love Bush? Just or Unjust War? No matter how I measure it- I gotta admit Saddam was a piece, and I'm happy to see him go.
Yeah, the world's a powderkeg. All I know is that in the end, we're all responsible for our own behaviour (although I know that's not real popular anymore). How civilized is your piece of the world?
Mghcanuck, Old Jesse Helms was very frustrated with the endless bickering and inaction that is the United Nations. He also was shocked with the amount graft and budget overruns at the UN. He therefore threatened to withhold funding (which, btw we pay WAY more than anyone else to support).
If you think there's government gridlock here at home with the Reps and Dems, think what posturing and back room deals go on at the UN to get ANYTHING done. The UN Security Council acting in unison? Let's remember who is on the Security Council; The US, France, G.B, Russia and China. Now there's 5 countries that have gotten along just swell for the last 50 years! That's like asking 5 audiophiles to settle on who makes the best amplifier! Finding unity when it comes to military action against a country where most of the same security council members have historic and/or economic ties is VERY difficult. Let's face it, the same countries that were against the war this time around abstained from the resolution that started Gulf War 1! Abstained! After one soveriegn nation invaded another one - and an invasion with NO pre-attack diplomacy! One could also speculate BTW that if the country being attacked (Kuwait) also didn't have huge oil reserves it may not have even generated a murmer at the UN, allowing the literal raping of country and population to go on save a "harshly worded statement" on the floor of the UN. Getting a clear mandate in this latest venture was a near impossible feat. Usually that's because UN language is always shrouded in further arbitral language such as "serious consequences if you don't comply". Then we all argue about what the consequence should be. In the meantime the country in question sends an envoy to engage in some sort of diplomacy designed to stall, deceive or go nowhere - in this case perhaps giving Iraq more time to hide or dismantle their WMD. I know it gave them enough time to stash millions of dollars in US currency and gold which it seemed like we were stumbling across almost daily after the fall of Baghdad, like the $500M in gold trying to be smuggled into Syria. All this cash from a regime so strapped for cash due to US sanctions that he couldn't buy enough food or medicine for his people (sob sob).
Multi-lateral agreements, the argument of sovereignty of nations or who ultimately enforces the international law, these are all too often the arguments of the despots themselves in order to buy time, stay in power and beef up their defenses. Think Treaty of Stalingrad here. The idea of equality of nations, a world court and a UN "superforce" to enforce international law is a nice idea in theory, then again so is the United Federation of Planets and Starfleet. It just isn't so. If the nations of the world can't pull together to and stop repressive, evil regimes then the UN does become an irrelevant instituion IMO.
As for the analogy of "calling the cops and putting them on trial, etc.", who do you think "the cops" are on the world stage? As far as the judge and jury in all of this - let that be a jury of their peers. In this case the Iraqi people. Maybe he'll get better than Mussolini did but I doubt it.
Treyhoss, your points are well taken. I guess my questions were more rhetorical than not and I certainly don't want to appear as though I think my opinion is more valid than another's. I'm just concerned about where it all ends, who gets invaded next, etc.
Yes, the USA and its armed forces are essentially the cops on the global stage. Also, there was no hesitation on the part of many nations to participate in the Afghan mission, where there was a fairly clear rationale for taking action. America was attacked, the culprit(s) identifiable and their whereabouts more or less known. America responded with the backing and military contributions of many of its traditional allies and others.
I just think that in the case of Iraq, the rationale was not as clear. Perhaps it is a pipe dream/naive to think that the members of the UN could or should act more decisively on these matters. However, I still hope for greater cooperation among nations and people.
This is what's so great about a forum like this (even though we are so far off of audio-related topics in this thread), the ability to share thoughts with others without fear of opression or retribution. Vigorous debate and disagreement are hallmarks of freedom and democracy.
Gunbei, the Sea Kings are a fleet of 40-year old helicopters still in service with the Canadian Navy and an embarassment. They have more of tendency to fall onto the decks of destroyers and frigates (upside down in one incident), rather than landing gracefully. Looks like our new Prime Minister has the military as a priority in general and replacing these choppers specifically in the short term. Some snipers from our Special Forces were even being considered for the US' Bronze Star (not sure if that's the right one) for their service in Afghanistan. In a couple of instances, they were able to 'neutralise' Taliban or al-Qaeda operatives from something like a mile or more away.
The canadians dont try to hard with thier military.
Who can blame them?
They are right next door to the US. Canada knows if anyone screws with them they screw with the USA. Any country that borders the USA basically has nothing to worry about, cause the USA would kick the crap outta anyone who messes with them.
I might take an occasional popshot at the canadians, but all in all, Canada is a good country, and a good friend of the USA.
Canada would probably to use those sea kings to take down aircraft if they put em in big catapults. hehehe
Mghcanuck, you gotta love those 50 cal. rifles similar to the Barrett 82A1 a lot of the sniper platoons seem to be using these days. I saw an ad for the bolt action version that claimed accuracy out to 2000 meters. That's pretty close to Gunnery Sgt. Carlos Hathcock's confirmed kill in Vietnam.
You are correct in what you say. And I agree, the goal of the UN is a noble one and one cannot give up that goal. Dialogue between nations usually helps to diffuse bad situations before they begin and on that level the UN works well. Hopefully, tools like the internet will open the doors to various freedoms where none existed before. Let us hope anyway.
Thanks everyone for your posts. Seems like the majority of Audiogoners are sane, even though there is a contingent that consistently hates the U.S. It's wonderful that we have free speech so that they can freely expose themselves to others.
So, what are you Viridian, the hall monitor? Does freedom of speech bother you only when faced with opposing points of view? If you do not agree with the majority of the posters here then step up to the pump and say something meaningful rather than a snide comment about this being a troll. Prior to the current conflict in Iraq these forums were a daily barrage of anti-US sentiments and we had to tolerate them, especially the never ending, "where is Saddam?" after the war began. Now we have him and you're not happy with that. Give us all a break, please. If you don't like this crowd you didn't need to even click on this link.
It's unfortunate that you deleted your post. Then again, Audiogon will likely delete this entire thread soon rather than leave it for its historic value. "Some are just uncomfortable with viewpoints that conflict with their own"? That describes well the post you made disappear. Now this thread is mysterious.
So, Here's a question for you. If the war in Iraq was wrong, why has Lybia offered to dismantle its WMD program that it previously said didn't exist? Do you think it would have done so without the capture of Saddam?
Some of us served our country during Vietnam and remember well the way veterans were treated by the protesters. It's funny how the anti-Vietnam crowd rewrites their behavior 30 years after the fact. Nobody in that movement will admit to spitting on the returning soldiers and calling them baby killers. The tune played today is that they supported our troops then (and now) but opposed the war. Not. The truth is that the portesters were antagonistic toward returning troops.
Right or wrong, the political pressure to leave Vietnam made for a too hasty retreat. Several hundred thousand South Vietnamese were slaughtered by the North when we left. This isn't talked about in the never ending Vietnam debate.
For the record I didn't say anything about kids and playgrounds and to paraphrase my comments in that way shows a mean spirit of intolerance which was very apparent in the post you deleted. You made some pretty disparaging remarks about the posters here not representing the majority opinion in the US and that makes you wrong.
While I wouldn't accuse you of being less than sane I will say that you are wrong headed. Of course, that's my opinion on things and, as always, others may differ.
You are just partialy correct. Libya was already making the attempts to please West to lift the embargo, with accepting the responsibility for the downing of the Pan-Am over Scotland, and distanced themselves from the terrorism. Now, that was just over nine months before Iraq adventure. Timing for the additional concesions was just perfect Christmas gift for the Blair and Bush. Thsalmon, if you want to "indetify" me even further, we could meet eye to eye at the Las Vegas CES, and you -and everyone else - can express your REACTIONARY views directly. I am easy to contact!
My point wasn't partially correct. I was referencing the connection between Saddam's capture and what Lybia has done. I didn't feel compelled to write the history of the world to make that point. But you, ever knowledgable, never reactionary, have it figured out as a Christmas present to Bush and Blair. You lost all credibility with that one.
Such a hostile invitation for the reactionaries to "meet" you at CES was totally uncalled for and seems to be a less than civilized solicitation.
I guess I didn't get to read Viridian's post before it was deleted, but I did not mean to assert that those who disagree with me are insane, at least in the literal, psychotic sense. If anybody saved it, please forward me a copy. Perhaps "reasonable" would have been a better term. However, it is equally inaccurate to label someone as "reactionary" just because they don't agree with you.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
