IRAQ IS NOT VIETNAM - Page 3

Edward Dolan wrote:

> "Tom Sherman" <tsherman@qconline.com> wrote in message news:2kbq4uFfk05U1@uni-
> berlin.de...
>
>>Freewheeling wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So, what happened on 9-11-73?
>>>
>>>And the fact that you could say that and believe the
>>>irony has some
>
> value
>
>>>suggests you never actually left 9-10-2001. Groundhog
>>>Day, sort of....
>>
>>September 11, 1973 was the day that the democratically
>>elected President of Chile, Salvador Allende, was killed
>>in a military coup led by Augusto Pinochet and backed by
>>the US at the direction of Henry Kissinger. In the
>>aftermath of the coup, over 3000 peaceful opponents of the
>>military dictatorship were murdered by Chilean death
>>squads, including those who left the country (Operation
>>Condor).
>>
>>So you see, September 11, 1973 and September 11, 2001 have
>>something in common - the murder of approximately 3000
>>innocent people.
>>
>>"I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country
>>go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own
>>people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean
>>voters to be left to decide for themselves". - Henry
>>Kissinger on the election of Salvador Allende as President
>>of Chile.
>
>
> And you expected THIS to be general knowledge to the point
> where everyone would know to what the hell you were
> referring? When are you ever going to get your head
> screwed on straight?

No, I did not expect most US readers to know the date - most
US history books and the mass US media omit or gloss over
the immoral actions of the US. In the interest of fairness
and balance, I point out these actions during political
discussions.

> On thing I do know for sure - if it is a question of
> leftists vs. rightists, I am going to be on the side of
> the rightists. The g.d. leftists have never given the
> world anything but the most god awful tyrannies (Hitler
> was a leftist - National SOCIALIST Party = NAZI). Henry
> Kissinger was a genius to see what needed to be done in
> Chile. 3,000 dead was a cheap price to prevent Chile from
> going communist and becoming allied with the Soviet Union.
> Would that all our statesmen were as smart as Kissinger -
> although he did foul up Vietnam, but that was mostly due
> to the cowardice of Congress.

Names are not very meaningful sometimes. The "Third Reich"
was a fascist state (and allied itself with the self-
proclaimed fascist regimes in Italy and Spain) that
persecuted socialists and communists.

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area

"Tom Sherman" <tsherman@qconline.com> wrote in message
news:2kc5ocFbld2U1@uni-berlin.de...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> > "Tom Sherman" <tsherman@qconline.com> wrote in message
> > news:2kbq4uFfk05U1@uni-berlin.de...
> >
> >>Freewheeling wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>So, what happened on 9-11-73?
> >>>
> >>>And the fact that you could say that and believe the
> >>>irony has some
> >
> > value
> >
> >>>suggests you never actually left 9-10-2001. Groundhog
> >>>Day, sort of....
> >>
> >>September 11, 1973 was the day that the democratically
> >>elected President of Chile, Salvador Allende, was killed
> >>in a military coup led by Augusto Pinochet and backed by
> >>the US at the direction of Henry Kissinger. In the
> >>aftermath of the coup, over 3000 peaceful opponents of
> >>the military dictatorship were murdered by Chilean death
> >>squads, including those who left the country (Operation
> >>Condor).
> >>
> >>So you see, September 11, 1973 and September 11, 2001
> >>have something in common - the murder of approximately
> >>3000 innocent people.
> >>
> >>"I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country
> >>go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own
> >>people. The issues are much too important for the
> >>Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves". -
> >>Henry Kissinger on the election of Salvador Allende as
> >>President of
Chile.
> >
> >
> > And you expected THIS to be general knowledge to the
> > point where
everyone
> > would know to what the hell you were referring? When are
> > you ever going
to
> > get your head screwed on straight?
>
> No, I did not expect most US readers to know the date -
> most US history books and the mass US media omit or gloss
> over the immoral actions of the US. In the interest of
> fairness and balance, I point out these actions during
> political discussions.

What immoral action would that be? Of course, you would
rather have seen a communist government in Chile allied to
the Soviet Union. This is is why I have always considered
liberals unfit to fight the Cold War and essentially
treasonous in nature. Thank God all of this is now history
and we do not have to concern ourselves with it anymore as
communism is now as dead as a door nail.

> > On thing I do know for sure - if it is a question of
> > leftists vs.
rightists,
> > I am going to be on the side of the rightists. The g.d.
> > leftists have
never
> > given the world anything but the most god awful
> > tyrannies (Hitler was a leftist - National SOCIALIST
> > Party = NAZI). Henry Kissinger was a
genius to
> > see what needed to be done in Chile. 3,000 dead was a
> > cheap price to
prevent
> > Chile from going communist and becoming allied with the
> > Soviet Union.
Would
> > that all our statesmen were as smart as Kissinger -
> > although he did
foul up
> > Vietnam, but that was mostly due to the cowardice of
> > Congress.
>
> Names are not very meaningful sometimes. The "Third Reich"
> was a fascist state (and allied itself with the self-
> proclaimed fascist regimes in Italy and Spain) that
> persecuted socialists and communists.

Fascism reeked of leftist ideology. Frankly, I don't think
there was a tinker's damn worth of difference between
fascism and communism. In practice they were both
totalitarian dictatorships and neither had any real
legitimacy. And they were both as far removed from democracy
as you can get.

--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota

"Jeri Toll" <jeritoll@aol.com> wrote in message
news:NgjDc.28951$Y3.16324@newsread2.....earthlink.net...
>
> IRAQ IS NOT VIETNAM:
>

If that isn't the truth.........

I Vietnam that haven't been fighting for thousands of years.

In Iraq they have been, and if any body thinks that George
W. or any other President is going to fix that........ then
I want some of the stuff there smoking.

Bill 96 Vanguard, 99 Duplex

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the
World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different
Servers! =-----

The number of murders that have been documented against Pinochet are in the
hundreds rather than the thousands, but lets assume 3,000. A couple of
points:

1. That number pales in comparison to the number of people
murdered under dictatorships of the left, which all-
tolled in the twentieth century number well over 100
million (over 30 million under Stalin alone).

2. The operation itself was proposed and carried out *during
a global war* with the above forces, which at the time
had enslaved another 100 million people in Eastern Europe
and the Baltic States.

3. There were lots of similar operations and policies aimed
at "balance of power" and dictated by a "realist foreign
policy" that had no interest in promoting democracy, and
that is currently in an internal war with those wishing
to spread the franchise of democracy for security
reasons. Most of these "realist" foreign policy
professionals have adopted the racist position that Arabs
are unfit for democracy and that we should therefore
simply appoint a strong man, a Pinochet if you like, in
Iraq... and leave. They are also the primary advisors to
John Kerry.

Which leads me to a couple of questions:

4. Why is it you oppose autocracy always and only if it
involves a rightist dictator, and never if it involves a
(usually far more murderous) leftist dictator?

5. And most significantly (and I really want an answer to
this one), why do you now support the same foreign
policy position in Iraq that you disdained almost 30
years ago in Chile?

--
--Scott "Tom Sherman" <tsherman@qconline.com> wrote in
message news:2kc5ocFbld2U1@uni-berlin.de...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> > "Tom Sherman" <tsherman@qconline.com> wrote in message
> > news:2kbq4uFfk05U1@uni-berlin.de...
> >
> >>Freewheeling wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>So, what happened on 9-11-73?
> >>>
> >>>And the fact that you could say that and believe the
> >>>irony has some
> >
> > value
> >
> >>>suggests you never actually left 9-10-2001. Groundhog
> >>>Day, sort of....
> >>
> >>September 11, 1973 was the day that the democratically
> >>elected President of Chile, Salvador Allende, was killed
> >>in a military coup led by Augusto Pinochet and backed by
> >>the US at the direction of Henry Kissinger. In the
> >>aftermath of the coup, over 3000 peaceful opponents of
> >>the military dictatorship were murdered by Chilean death
> >>squads, including those who left the country (Operation
> >>Condor).
> >>
> >>So you see, September 11, 1973 and September 11, 2001
> >>have something in common - the murder of approximately
> >>3000 innocent people.
> >>
> >>"I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country
> >>go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own
> >>people. The issues are much too important for the
> >>Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves". -
> >>Henry Kissinger on the election of Salvador Allende as
> >>President of
Chile.
> >
> >
> > And you expected THIS to be general knowledge to the
> > point where
everyone
> > would know to what the hell you were referring? When are
> > you ever going
to
> > get your head screwed on straight?
>
> No, I did not expect most US readers to know the date -
> most US history books and the mass US media omit or gloss
> over the immoral actions of the US. In the interest of
> fairness and balance, I point out these actions during
> political discussions.
>
> > On thing I do know for sure - if it is a question of
> > leftists vs.
rightists,
> > I am going to be on the side of the rightists. The g.d.
> > leftists have
never
> > given the world anything but the most god awful
> > tyrannies (Hitler was a leftist - National SOCIALIST
> > Party = NAZI). Henry Kissinger was a
genius to
> > see what needed to be done in Chile. 3,000 dead was a
> > cheap price to
prevent
> > Chile from going communist and becoming allied with the
> > Soviet Union.
Would
> > that all our statesmen were as smart as Kissinger -
> > although he did
foul up
> > Vietnam, but that was mostly due to the cowardice of
> > Congress.
>
> Names are not very meaningful sometimes. The "Third Reich"
> was a fascist state (and allied itself with the self-
> proclaimed fascist regimes in Italy and Spain) that
> persecuted socialists and communists.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman – Quad City Area

"I Vietnam that haven't been fighting for thousands of
years.

In Iraq they have been, and if any body thinks that George
W. or any other President is going to fix that........ then
I want some of the stuff there smoking."

First of all that comparison belies a certain ignorance of
history, since Vietnam had been fighting the Chinese off and
on for "thousands of years." In addition Iraq lived for
relatively long periods after it had been established under
Sykes-Picot with relatively benign politics, under a
Hashemite ruler. It may not have been a democracy, but it
had the rule of law and a system not unlike that of present-
day Jordan.

Secondly that's a patently racist position, and the
following article makes clear that the theory upon which its
based has already been disproved:

http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen...0406280916.asp

Not to mention the fact that a Kurdish democracy has existed
for some time in the north, and they've been at war far more
freqently than the Arabs and other ethnicities to the south.

--
--Scott "Bill McAninch" <WRmcaninch@cecomet.net> wrote in
message news:40e146e2_5@corp.newsgroups.com...
>
> "Jeri Toll" <jeritoll@aol.com> wrote in message news:NgjD-
> c.28951$Y3.16324@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >
> > IRAQ IS NOT VIETNAM:
> >
>
> If that isn't the truth.........
>
> I Vietnam that haven't been fighting for thousands
> of years.
>
> In Iraq they have been, and if any body thinks that George
> W. or any other President is going to fix that........
> then I want some of the stuff there smoking.
>
> Bill 96 Vanguard, 99 Duplex
>
>
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News
> =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service
> in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19
> Different Servers! =-----

"Bill McAninch" <WRmcaninch@cecomet.net> wrote in message
news:40e146e2_5@corp.newsgroups.com...
>
> "Jeri Toll" <jeritoll@aol.com> wrote in message news:NgjD-
> c.28951$Y3.16324@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >
> > IRAQ IS NOT VIETNAM:
> >
>
> If that isn't the truth.........
>
> I Vietnam that haven't been fighting for thousands
> of years.
>
> In Iraq they have been, and if any body thinks that George
> W. or any other President is going to fix that........
> then I want some of the stuff there smoking.

The land presently known as Iraq was mostly a desert waste
land for many hundreds of years. The ancient Mesopotamian
civilizations pretty much exhausted the land base and then
later came the Mongols, Timurlane, the Turks and God only
knows who else to literally kill off everyone who lived in
that area. When they talk about this area (the land between
the two rivers) being a civilization going back thousands of
years, they are not talking about the present Arabs who
occupy the land today, I can assure you. You could spend
your life studying the ancient history of the Near East and
end up not knowing very much. That is how complex it is.

--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Freewheeling wrote:

> The number of murders that have been documented against
> Pinochet are in the hundreds rather than the thousands,
> but lets assume 3,000. A couple of points:
>
> 1. That number pales in comparison to the number of people
> murdered under dictatorships of the left, which all-
> tolled in the twentieth century number well over 100
> million (over 30 million under Stalin alone).

In certain cases, I believe the name and professed ideology
of the system is unimportant. Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc.
can be considered criminally insane, and their actions
represent the worst of a deranged personality and not the
tenants of any particular political system. We could
therefore consider Mussolini and Franco, but not Hitler to
be representative of Fascism; and Lenin, Mao, and Castro but
not Stalin and Pol Pot to be representative of Communism.

> 2. The operation itself was proposed and carried out
> *during a global war* with the above forces, which at
> the time had enslaved another 100 million people in
> Eastern Europe and the Baltic States.

But Salvador Allende won a democratic election in Chile, as
opposed to being installed during a violent revolution. This
makes outside interference to remove him and his government
profoundly undemocratic and immoral if you consider
democratic governance to be a right.

> 3. There were lots of similar operations and policies
> aimed at "balance of power" and dictated by a "realist
> foreign policy" that had no interest in promoting
> democracy, and that is currently in an internal war
> with those wishing to spread the franchise of democracy
> for security reasons. Most of these "realist" foreign
> policy professionals have adopted the racist position
> that Arabs are unfit for democracy and that we should
> therefore simply appoint a strong man, a Pinochet if
> you like, in Iraq... and leave. They are also the
> primary advisors to John Kerry.

The road to Hell is paved with realist intentions. Immoral
actions are still immoral, even if the ultimate goal is a
laudable one.

> Which leads me to a couple of questions:
>
> 1. Why is it you oppose autocracy always and only if it
> involves a rightist dictator, and never if it involves
> a (usually far more murderous) leftist dictator?

Please show one example where I have condoned autocracy of
any type. This will be a futile task, since the above
question has a false premise.

"Communist" autocracies in most cases have had the advantage
of at least providing for the basic needs of all people,
while most fascist governments pander to the wealthy elite’s
while the masses suffer from abject poverty.

> 2. And most significantly (and I really want an answer to
> this one), why do you now support the same foreign
> policy position in Iraq that you disdained almost 30
> years ago in Chile?

Yet another question with a false premise. My position on
Iraq was that the UN should have demanded a large, PERMANENT
presence of weapons inspectors in Iraq as long as Hussein
and his ilk were in power in Iraq, backed by force if
necessary. Since from the fall of 2002 to the time the UN
withdrew its inspectors due to the immanent US invasion,
Hussein acceded to that demand. Therefore, the US invasion
at the time it occurred was unnecessary and immoral.

How the above position has any similarity to the position
that the US should not have interfered with the
DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED Chilean government of Salvador
Allende is beyond me.

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area

"Freewheeling" <email_at_bottomofpost@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:2kdbjuFvcujU1@uni-berlin.de...
> The number of murders that have been documented against
> Pinochet are in
the
> hundreds rather than the thousands, but lets assume 3,000.
> A couple of points:
>
> 1. That number pales in comparison to the number of people
> murdered under dictatorships of the left, which all-
> tolled in the twentieth century
number
> well over 100 million (over 30 million under Stalin
> alone).
>
> 2. The operation itself was proposed and carried out
> *during a global war* with the above forces, which at
> the time had enslaved another 100 million people in
> Eastern Europe and the Baltic States.
>
> 3. There were lots of similar operations and policies
> aimed at "balance of power" and dictated by a "realist
> foreign policy" that had no interest in promoting
> democracy, and that is currently in an internal war
> with those wishing to spread the franchise of democracy
> for security reasons. Most
of
> these "realist" foreign policy professionals have adopted
> the racist position that Arabs are unfit for democracy and
> that we should therefore simply appoint a strong man, a
> Pinochet if you like, in Iraq... and leave. They are also
> the primary advisors to John Kerry.

Scott, your above point (No 3) is seminal and should be
drilled into the head of every liberal numskull here on
ARBR. If Bush succeeds in getting democracy installed in the
Middle East in a nation like Iraq it will be the greatest
event in the history of that region ever and will redound to
the eternal credit of the US. Only America would ever
undertake to even try to do something like this. We are the
only crusader nation left in the world today. Compare us to
the French and the rest of Europe and you will see what is
possible as compared to the status quo that they represent.
We could fail, but what a noble effort!

> Which leads me to a couple of questions:
>
> 1. Why is it you oppose autocracy always and only if it
> involves a
rightist
> dictator, and never if it involves a (usually far more
> murderous) leftist dictator?

Mr. Tom hates all rich folks and resents their wealth. He
thinks they are preventing him from getting his just
deserts in this life. He probably foams at the mouth at
the mere mention of certain names like Rockefeller for
instance. He somehow thinks that leftists are not so
money hungry and that they will let working stiffs like
him get more of what they consider to be their just
deserts. But in order to think this, you have got to
ignore the history of nations that have been taken over
by leftists for the past 100 years. But when you have
got tunnel vision like Mr. Tom, this is easy to do. Just
hate the rich because they are the cause of all the
misery in the world.

> 2. And most significantly (and I really want an answer to
> this one), why
do
> you now support the same foreign policy position in Iraq
> that you
disdained
> almost 30 years ago in Chile?

This is way too convoluted a question for Mr. Tom to wrap
his mind around. He won't know what you are talking about
and will give it a reverse twist in any event. He is only in
favor of real politik when it is being done by leftists like
the former Soviet Union. He is never in favor of real
politik when it is being done by America in the interests of
combating totalitarianism and dictatorship in the world.

Ms. Tom is basically a traitor to the ideals and principals
of the West. He wanted Allende to win, just like he
wants Castro to win, and did not care that they would
align themselves with the Soviet Union - and all because
of an idiotic left wing ideology which has been proven
over and over again not to work.

--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota

> You could spend your life studying the ancient history of
> the Near East
and
> end up not knowing very much. That is how complex it is.
>
> --
> Ed Dolan - Minnesota
>
>

My point exactly...... why do we think we can fix the whole
mess over there.

Bill

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the
World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different
Servers! =-----

"Tom Sherman" <tsherman@qconline.com> wrote in message
news:2keeinF1ej6pU1@uni-berlin.de...
> Freewheeling wrote:
>
> > The number of murders that have been documented against
> > Pinochet are in
the
> > hundreds rather than the thousands, but lets assume
> > 3,000. A couple of points:
> >
> > 1. That number pales in comparison to the number of
> > people murdered
under
> > dictatorships of the left, which all-tolled in the
> > twentieth century
number
> > well over 100 million (over 30 million under Stalin
> > alone).
>
> In certain cases, I believe the name and professed
> ideology of the system is unimportant. Stalin, Hitler, Pol
> Pot, etc. can be considered criminally insane, and their
> actions represent the worst of a deranged personality and
> not the tenants of any particular political system. We
> could therefore consider Mussolini and Franco, but not
> Hitler to be representative of Fascism; and Lenin, Mao,
> and Castro but not Stalin and Pol Pot to be representative
> of Communism.

Mr. Tom is completely mistaken about this. Communism was
tried repeatedly by the most serious men the world has
ever known. It failed not because of tyrants, but
because it was a flawed ideology. All those tyrants Mr.
Tom mentions above were the end result of a failed
ideology. His pitiful attempt to separate out certain
tyrants from one another is laughable in the extreme.
Mao may have been the greatest killer of all time, and
Lenin was as deranged as it is possible to get. But
their ideologies made them that way. I charge Mr. Tom
with being nothing but an apologist for the worst
killers the world has ever known.

By the way, Mussolini and Franco were probably as deranged
or not as Hitler. Fascism had many leftist elements to its
ideology and I do not consider it all that different from
Communism. The mortal enemy of both were the democracies
of the West.

And finally, ideology is always of the utmost importance.
All those tyrants above were true believers, Hitler maybe
more so than any of the others. To say that any of these
tyrants were not intimately connected to their ideologies is
the most insane thing I have ever read. Stalin and Mao
killed tens of millions in the name of their ideology. Now
maybe you began to see why I hold the left in such contempt.

> > 2. The operation itself was proposed and carried out
> > *during a global
war*
> > with the above forces, which at the time had enslaved
> > another 100
million
> > people in Eastern Europe and the Baltic States.
>
> But Salvador Allende won a democratic election in Chile,
> as opposed to being installed during a violent revolution.
> This makes outside interference to remove him and his
> government profoundly undemocratic and immoral if you
> consider democratic governance to be a right.

Kissinger was right and Mr. Tom is wrong (as usual). Who
needs a Chile in the Western Hemisphere aligned with the
arch enemy of mankind, the Soviet Union? It is more
important that America safeguard its own security than that
a communist government be permitted to come to power in
Chile regardless of any election. It may be that the people
of Chile were too stupid to know what they were getting. We
in effect saved them from themselves (if in fact it were a
true and free election at all - but who is going to look up
this kind of crap at this late date).

> > 3. There were lots of similar operations and policies
> > aimed at "balance
of
> > power" and dictated by a "realist foreign policy" that
> > had no interest
in
> > promoting democracy, and that is currently in an
> > internal war with those wishing to spread the franchise
> > of democracy for security reasons. Most
of
> > these "realist" foreign policy professionals have
> > adopted the racist position that Arabs are unfit for
> > democracy and that we should therefore simply appoint a
> > strong man, a Pinochet if you like, in Iraq... and
leave.
> > They are also the primary advisors to John Kerry.
>
> The road to Hell is paved with realist intentions. Immoral
> actions are still immoral, even if the ultimate goal is a
> laudable one.

The greater good always takes precedence over any lesser
good. See, I can be a stupid moralist too when it suits my
purpose. What would Mr. Tom know about ultimate goals,
unless they are communist and/or leftist goals.

> > Which leads me to a couple of questions:
> >
> > 1. Why is it you oppose autocracy always and only if it
> > involves a
rightist
> > dictator, and never if it involves a (usually far more
> > murderous)
leftist
> > dictator?
>
> Please show one example where I have condoned autocracy of
> any type. This will be a futile task, since the above
> question has a false premise.

I believe you are a supporter of the Castro government which
is known to be murderous and highly autocratic. I suspect
you supported the Sandanistas too. And the leftists in San
Salvador. But here is a guy who is always complaining about
Hitler and never complaining about Stalin, at least not in
the same breath . Why is that I wonder if he is not in
sympathy with the left, no matter how murderous they are and
no matter how autocratic they are. The next time you mention
Hitler, be sure to throw in Stalin too, why don't you? The
next time you mention fascism, be sure to throw in communism
too, why don't you. Then maybe you will have some
credibility instead of always coming across like the left
wing wacko nut that you are.

> "Communist" autocracies in most cases have had the
> advantage of at least providing for the basic needs of all
> people, while most fascist governments pander to the
> wealthy elite’s while the masses suffer from abject
> poverty.

Now I have heard everything! No one has ever suffered more
in the history of the world than those living under left
wing ideologies. Hitler at least had the virtue of killing
mostly non-Germans. Stalin killed mostly his own people. And
so did Mao. And so do all leftists. That is what their
ideology leads them to do. They all end up murderers because
there ideology leaves them no choice when they cannot coerce
human nature into their crazy mold. If Mr. Sherman were
running things under his leftist ideology, he would end up
murdering people too. There is no other way when you want to
make everyone equal. Mr. Tom and all leftists do not have a
clue about human nature.

> > 2. And most significantly (and I really want an answer
> > to this one), why
do
> > you now support the same foreign policy position in Iraq
> > that you
disdained
> > almost 30 years ago in Chile?
>
> Yet another question with a false premise. My position on
> Iraq was that the UN should have demanded a large,
> PERMANENT presence of weapons inspectors in Iraq as long
> as Hussein and his ilk were in power in Iraq, backed by
> force if necessary. Since from the fall of 2002 to the
> time the UN withdrew its inspectors due to the immanent US
> invasion, Hussein acceded to that demand. Therefore, the
> US invasion at the time it occurred was unnecessary and
> immoral.

We could not have maintain our pre-war position there
indefinitely. It was bound to fail eventually, as in fact in
did fail. Mr. Tom's way would leave us right back where we
were with a steadily deteriorating situation. His solution
is no solution at all. Those damn inspectors couldn't find
their own asses.

> How the above position has any similarity to the position
> that the US should not have interfered with the
> DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED Chilean government of Salvador
> Allende is beyond me.

In order to prevent World Communism as represented by the
Soviet Union from achieving an eventual victory and
enslaving the world - you idiot!

--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota

"Bill McAninch" <WRmcaninch@cecomet.net> wrote in message
news:40e20f7c_5@corp.newsgroups.com...
>
> > You could spend your life studying the ancient history
> > of the Near East
> and
> > end up not knowing very much. That is how complex it is.
> >
> > --
> > Ed Dolan - Minnesota
> >
> >
>
> My point exactly...... why do we think we can fix the
> whole mess over
there.

Because people are people and I am not a racist (despite
what some may think here). The Arabs are capable of
democracy the same as anyone else. What mostly works against
them is their despicable religion which is still mired in
the Middle Ages. But the world is bent on secularizing
everyone and the Arabs will be dragged kicking and screaming
into the 2lst century whether they like it or not. The
sooner they can shake off their abominable religion (or at
least reform it) and get some democracy, the better off they
will be. All the present Arab societies are failed societies
by world standards. Only the black African societies are
worse off.

--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Edward Dolan wrote:

> "Tom Sherman" <tsherman@qconline.com> wrote in message news:2keeinF1ej6pU1@uni-
> berlin.de...
>
>>Freewheeling wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The number of murders that have been documented against
>>>Pinochet are in
>
> the
>
>>>hundreds rather than the thousands, but lets assume
>>>3,000. A couple of points:
>>>
>>>1. That number pales in comparison to the number of
>>> people murdered
>
> under
>
>>>dictatorships of the left, which all-tolled in the
>>>twentieth century
>
> number
>
>>>well over 100 million (over 30 million under Stalin
>>>alone).
>>
>>In certain cases, I believe the name and professed
>>ideology of the system is unimportant. Stalin, Hitler, Pol
>>Pot, etc. can be considered criminally insane, and their
>>actions represent the worst of a deranged personality and
>>not the tenants of any particular political system. We
>>could therefore consider Mussolini and Franco, but not
>>Hitler to be representative of Fascism; and Lenin, Mao,
>>and Castro but not Stalin and Pol Pot to be representative
>>of Communism.
>
>
> Mr. Tom is completely mistaken about this. Communism was
> tried repeatedly by the most serious men the world has
> ever known....

All the "communist" systems are/were fatally flawed because
they use/used a totalitarian central government. No one has
actually tried a system of many democratic worker run
cooperatives. Therefore, the jury is still out.

> Kissinger was right and Mr. Tom is wrong (as usual). Who
> needs a Chile in the Western Hemisphere aligned with the
> arch enemy of mankind, the Soviet Union? It is more
> important that America safeguard its own security than
> that a communist government be permitted to come to power
> in Chile regardless of any election. It may be that the
> people of Chile were too stupid to know what they were
> getting. We in effect saved them from themselves (if in
> fact it were a true and free election at all - but who is
> going to look up this kind of crap at this late date).

Mr. Dolan is assuming a fact not in evidence: that
Allende was a Soviet puppet. Therefore, his argument
has no basis.

>>>3. There were lots of similar operations and policies
>>> aimed at "balance
>
> of
>
>>>power" and dictated by a "realist foreign policy" that
>>>had no interest
>
> in
>
>>>promoting democracy, and that is currently in an internal
>>>war with those wishing to spread the franchise of
>>>democracy for security reasons. Most
>
> of
>
>>>these "realist" foreign policy professionals have adopted
>>>the racist position that Arabs are unfit for democracy
>>>and that we should therefore simply appoint a strong man,
>>>a Pinochet if you like, in Iraq... and
>
> leave.
>
>>>They are also the primary advisors to John Kerry.
>>
>>The road to Hell is paved with realist intentions. Immoral
>>actions are still immoral, even if the ultimate goal is a
>>laudable one.
>
> The greater good always takes precedence over any lesser
> good. See, I can be a stupid moralist too when it suits my
> purpose. What would Mr. Tom know about ultimate goals,
> unless they are communist and/or leftist goals.

This assumes that immoral methods are necessary to achieve a
moral end. Again, Mr. Dolan assumes a fact not in evidence.

>>>Which leads me to a couple of questions:
>>>
>>>1. Why is it you oppose autocracy always and only if it
>>> involves a
>
> rightist
>
>>>dictator, and never if it involves a (usually far more
>>>murderous)
>
> leftist
>
>>>dictator?
>>
>>Please show one example where I have condoned autocracy of
>>any type. This will be a futile task, since the above
>>question has a false premise.
>
>
> I believe you are a supporter of the Castro government
> which is known to be murderous and highly autocratic. I
> suspect you supported the Sandanistas too. And the
> leftists in San Salvador. But here is a guy who is always
> complaining about Hitler and never complaining about
> Stalin, at least not in the same breath . Why is that I
> wonder if he is not in sympathy with the left, no matter
> how murderous they are and no matter how autocratic they
> are. The next time you mention Hitler, be sure to throw
> in Stalin too, why don't you? The next time you mention
> fascism, be sure to throw in communism too, why don't
> you. Then maybe you will have some credibility instead of
> always coming across like the left wing wacko nut that
> you are.

Yet again, Mr. Dolan expresses "beliefs" that are at best
gross distortions of fact. [YAWN]

>>How the above position has any similarity to the position
>>that the US should not have interfered with the
>>DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED Chilean government of Salvador
>>Allende is beyond me.
>
>
> In order to prevent World Communism as represented by the
> Soviet Union from achieving an eventual victory and
> enslaving the world - you idiot!

See above. What evidence is there that Allende was a Soviet
puppet? I know Mr. Dolan will have trouble with this
concept, but maybe Allende was just trying to achieve the
best overall quality of life for the Chilean people, rather
than catering to the wealthy elite.

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area

"Tom Sherman" <tsherman@qconline.com> wrote in message
news:2kentlF1fnqhU1@uni-berlin.de...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> > "Tom Sherman" <tsherman@qconline.com> wrote in message
> > news:2keeinF1ej6pU1@uni-berlin.de...
> >
> >>Freewheeling wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>The number of murders that have been documented against
> >>>Pinochet are in
> >
> > the
> >
> >>>hundreds rather than the thousands, but lets assume
> >>>3,000. A couple of points:
> >>>
> >>>1. That number pales in comparison to the number of
> >>> people murdered
> >
> > under
> >
> >>>dictatorships of the left, which all-tolled in the
> >>>twentieth century
> >
> > number
> >
> >>>well over 100 million (over 30 million under Stalin
> >>>alone).
> >>
> >>In certain cases, I believe the name and professed
> >>ideology of the system is unimportant. Stalin, Hitler,
> >>Pol Pot, etc. can be considered criminally insane, and
> >>their actions represent the worst of a deranged
> >>personality and not the tenants of any particular
> >>political system. We could therefore consider Mussolini
> >>and Franco, but not Hitler to be representative of
> >>Fascism; and Lenin, Mao, and Castro but not Stalin and
> >>Pol Pot to be representative of Communism.
> >
> >
> > Mr. Tom is completely mistaken about this. Communism was
> > tried
repeatedly by
> > the most serious men the world has ever known....
>
> All the "communist" systems are/were fatally flawed
> because they use/used a totalitarian central government.
> No one has actually tried a system of many democratic
> worker run cooperatives. Therefore, the jury is still out.

The jury is NOT out. Judgments have been made about the
communist system and ideology based on more than 80 years
of history in a variety of countries. Most communist
governments do not initially start out murdering anyone,
but they quickly resort to that when they can't make it
work. And they can't make it work because it runs counter
to human nature. What you think MIGHT work is just more pie
in the sky.

> > Kissinger was right and Mr. Tom is wrong (as usual). Who
> > needs a Chile
in
> > the Western Hemisphere aligned with the arch enemy of
> > mankind, the
Soviet
> > Union? It is more important that America safeguard its
> > own security than that a communist government be
> > permitted to come to power in Chile regardless of any
> > election. It may be that the people of Chile were too
> > stupid to know what they were getting. We in effect
> > saved them from themselves (if in fact it were a true
> > and free election at all - but who
is
> > going to look up this kind of crap at this late date).
>
> Mr. Dolan is assuming a fact not in evidence: that Allende
> was a Soviet puppet. Therefore, his argument has no
> basis.

All communist regimes during the Cold War looked to the
Soviet Union for support and aid. Cuba is the classic
example of course, but Chile under Allende would have done
the same if we had not interfered. We did not want another
Cuba in the Western Hemisphere.

> >>>3. There were lots of similar operations and policies
> >>> aimed at "balance
> >
> > of
> >
> >>>power" and dictated by a "realist foreign policy" that
> >>>had no interest
> >
> > in
> >
> >>>promoting democracy, and that is currently in an
> >>>internal war with
those
> >>>wishing to spread the franchise of democracy for
> >>>security reasons.
Most
> >
> > of
> >
> >>>these "realist" foreign policy professionals have
> >>>adopted the racist position that Arabs are unfit for
> >>>democracy and that we should
therefore
> >>>simply appoint a strong man, a Pinochet if you like, in
> >>>Iraq... and
> >
> > leave.
> >
> >>>They are also the primary advisors to John Kerry.
> >>
> >>The road to Hell is paved with realist intentions.
> >>Immoral actions are still immoral, even if the ultimate
> >>goal is a laudable one.
> >
> > The greater good always takes precedence over any lesser
> > good. See, I
can be
> > a stupid moralist too when it suits my purpose. What
> > would Mr. Tom know about ultimate goals, unless they are
> > communist and/or leftist goals.
>
> This assumes that immoral methods are necessary to achieve
> a moral end. Again, Mr. Dolan assumes a fact not in
> evidence.

The end is what is important when freedom and democracy are
at stake. I don't give a good g.d. about the means. I would
have resorted to world wide nuclear Armageddon to prevent
the Soviets from taking over the world even if it meant the
end of every living thing on this earth. If we humans can't
live in freedom, then let us perish.

> >>>Which leads me to a couple of questions:
> >>>
> >>>1. Why is it you oppose autocracy always and only if it
> >>> involves a
> >
> > rightist
> >
> >>>dictator, and never if it involves a (usually far more
> >>>murderous)
> >
> > leftist
> >
> >>>dictator?
> >>
> >>Please show one example where I have condoned autocracy
> >>of any type. This will be a futile task, since the above
> >>question has a false
premise.
> >
> >
> > I believe you are a supporter of the Castro government
> > which is known to
be
> > murderous and highly autocratic. I suspect you supported
> > the Sandanistas too. And the leftists in San Salvador.
> > But here is a guy who is always complaining about Hitler
> > and never complaining about Stalin, at least
not in
> > the same breath . Why is that I wonder if he is not in
> > sympathy with the left, no matter how murderous they are
> > and no matter how autocratic they are. The next time you
> > mention Hitler, be sure to throw in Stalin too,
why
> > don't you? The next time you mention fascism, be sure to
> > throw in
communism
> > too, why don't you. Then maybe you will have some
> > credibility instead of always coming across like the
> > left wing wacko nut that you are.
>
> Yet again, Mr. Dolan expresses "beliefs" that are at best
> gross distortions of fact. [YAWN]

I have got your number all right and you know it. But I
agree with you. It is best to shut up when you have
nothing to say.

> >>How the above position has any similarity to the
> >>position that the US should not have interfered with the
> >>DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED Chilean government of Salvador
> >>Allende is beyond me.
> >
> >
> > In order to prevent World Communism as represented by
> > the Soviet Union
from
> > achieving an eventual victory and enslaving the world -
> > you idiot!
>
> See above. What evidence is there that Allende was a
> Soviet puppet? I know Mr. Dolan will have trouble with
> this concept, but maybe Allende was just trying to achieve
> the best overall quality of life for the Chilean people,
> rather than catering to the wealthy elite.

Were you some kind of secret agent for Allende and the
Communists? Allende would have become a Soviet puppet just
like Castro. Why? Because all Communists know they cannot
coexist in a world with Western type democracies.

Reagan will go down in history as one of the greatest
Presidents of the 20th century because he knew how rotten
the Soviet and all Communist governments are and he actively
fought to bring them down. You and your ilk were perfectly
happy to coexist with them because you secretly (or maybe
not so secretly in your case) are in sympathy with these
mass murderers. And for what? For a crazy ideology which has
been proven wrong over and over. For pie in the sky! Mr. Tom
is actually a religious nut to believe in any of this
leftist crap. He is a true believer and therefore lost to
rationality and to the facts.

--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota

"Freewheeling" <email_at_bottomofpost@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:2kdcgmFvvj6U1@uni-berlin.de...
> "I Vietnam that haven't been fighting for thousands
> of years.
>
> In Iraq they have been, and if any body thinks that George
> W. or any other President is going to fix that........
> then I want some of the stuff there smoking."
>
> First of all that comparison belies a certain ignorance of
> history, since Vietnam had been fighting the Chinese off
> and on for "thousands of years." In addition Iraq lived
> for relatively long periods after it had been established
> under Sykes-Picot with relatively benign politics, under a
> Hashemite ruler. It may not have been a democracy, but it
> had the rule of law and a system not unlike that of present-
> day Jordan.
>
> Secondly that's a patently racist position, and the
> following article
makes
> clear that the theory upon which its based has already
> been disproved:
>
> http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen20040628-
> 0916.asp
>
> Not to mention the fact that a Kurdish democracy has
> existed for some time in the north, and they've been at
> war far more freqently than the Arabs
and
> other ethnicities to the south.
>
> --
> --Scott

Scott, the g.d liberals do not believe in the mission of
America which is to bring freedom and democracy to the
world. All they want is some kind of g.d. welfare state for
the masses. America is so much greater than that! The Arabs
can be led into freedom and democracy the same as any other
people in the world. That is the only way we are going to
ultimately win the war on terror. The liberals are not up to
the battle and have no stomach for it. I can't think of
anything that America could be doing in the world that would
be more worthwhile. The liberals must be reduced to a
permanent minority party in this country in order for
America to fulfill its mission in the world. I have come to
hate liberals as much as I ever hated communists. They have
treasonous souls and are not for America.

--
Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Edward Dolan wrote:

> ...That is the only way we are going to ultimately win the
> war on terror....

Just how does one fight a war against an abstract noun?
It is bad enough that the mainstream US media is using
such tripe in their marketing, but you, Mr. Dolan, should
know better.

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area