Another good reason to whack Saddam

[Tabooqui]

Imperialism?

I'm on the side of good punctuation and relatively decent spelling, no more or less. Too bad the TMF can't get a spellcheck service installed. It would make posts a lot more readable and coherent.

As for Noam Chomsky, isn't he a college professor at MIT? Not exactly a position that reflects independent political thought and behavior. I'd rather read a European point of view for a bit less bias.

 

[ShiningIce]

I'm with you August.

 

[Biggles of 266]

Re: Imperialism?

As for Noam Chomsky, isn't he a college professor at MIT?

From zmag.org/chomsky/

Noam Chomsky is one of America's most prominent political dissidents. A renowned professor of linguistics at MIT, he has authored over 30 political books dissecting such issues as U.S. interventionism in the developing world, the political economy of human rights and the propaganda role of corporate media.

 

[MistressValerie]

actually the us first invaded south vietnam after assinating their president with the help of the cia.

then you right wing war lovers went on to murder 3million people, and in doing so left the country of cambodia in ruins, another 600,000 would die of malnutrition out of the disater you created (for what?) every academic admits that it was because of this that pol pot was able to take power. Pol pot was not leftist, he was a military dictator, he as also very nationalistic, killing off many ethnic groups. (a key componet of leftish is internationalism) And after vietnam ivaded cambodia (one of the only humanitarian interventions in the century) to put a stop to the violence, it was the right wing who attacked vietnam and defended pol pots regimes(even supporting it) but you failed and the khymer rouge were kicked out of power and veitnam left back to their own country.

I happen to be a survivor of the Pol Pot regime: I was born in Cambodia and grew up in refugee camps in Thailand, so please let me address this one.

First, you are right that the US invaded S Vietnam, but that was the culmination of successive interventions by liberal Democrats Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy, in that order. Liberal Democrat Johnson escalated the war, which was stopped by conservative Republican Nixon and moderate Republican Ford. The assasination of Diem was permitted (not ordered) by the CIA, because Diem was an insane dictator as well as an untrustworthy ally.

Pol Pot seized power in Cambodia after the US Congress withdrew support for further involvement in Indochina. I agree with you that Pol Pot was not a true leftist. His nightmare regime was supported by the liberal UN, however, during both the (R) Ford and (D) Carter presidencies.

Vietnam did invade the country and stopped the bloodshed, but only because Pol Pot kept sending his own army across the Vietnamese border and violating Vietnamese sovereignty and territory. The North Vietnamese communists themselves had a history of terrible brutality and blood-lust dating back to their early independence movement during WW II. The US supported both sides at that time, because of the need to drive te Japanese out of Indochina.

The history of the region has been one of the saddest in human history, and you are correct about the number killed -- 3 Million is about right. Nevertheless, I still don't see this as a right vs. left issue -- the problem is actually one of authoritarianism vs. liberty.

I am not taking sides nor criticising August here -- I just want to make sure that the facts are set out clearly and fairly.

Love and Liberty,

 

[Krokus]

Right wingers do love their hypocracy.

Don't you guys mean "hypocrisy"? Get it right, the both of you, before you run your mouths. Lol.

 

[august spies]

thats for your input val, but a lot of people like me do view liberty and authoritarianism as a left vs right issue, mainly because the right is always authoritarian and can not survive without authoritarianism.

As for Diem i was not saying he wasnt an authoritarian, but thats not the reason the CIA wanted him killed, as you pointed out he wasnt a "Stable ally" to the US meaning he probably wouldnt have let them destroy the entire region like they did, and his replacement was just as much if not more of an authoritarian.

To add to the sadness of the region, im sure your aware of the plight of the Burmese people, who also are currently in many Thai refugee camps. This is an issue i feel that is completley left out of corporate right wing major media. It would be good to get some dialouge going about them.

www.freeburmacoalition.org

 

[ShiningIce]

Wonderful Krokus you know how to look in a thesaraus. Im impressed, can you also pat your head and rub your tummy at the same time?? LOL LOL LOL LOL

 

[Biggles of 266]

Isn't it one of the four signs of the apocalypse when people start correcting spelling on internet forums? Since when has this been a haven for grammar and punctuation? Mocking the spelling of others seems like a way to score cheap shots.

Biggles

 

[Strelnikov]

Aren't we drifting just a little off topic? The last dozen or so posts have been mostly of the "nyah-nyah" variety. If you agree with me that we ought to whack Saddam, or if you oppose taking Saddam out, tell us why. Present a logical argument, preferably grammatically correct and spelled correctly. Otherwise, please start your own thread.

Strelnikov

 

[MistressValerie]

thats for your input val, but a lot of people like me do view liberty and authoritarianism as a left vs right issue, mainly because the right is always authoritarian and can not survive without authoritarianism.

To add to the sadness of the region, im sure your aware of the plight of the Burmese people, who also are currently in many Thai refugee camps. This is an issue i feel that is completley left out of corporate right wing major media. It would be good to get some dialouge going about them.

www.freeburmacoalition.org

Thanks, August ... I know that the Burmese have suffered greatly under their bizarre government, but we must also remember Tibet, which is being crushed and destroyed by the ultra-left Chinese Communists ...

As to getting back on track about Saddam: I agree w/ August that the US built him up in the first place (Reagan wanted to use him against Iran), that Bush Sr. screwed up hugely by inviting Saddam to attack Kuwait and then fighting half a war against him, that Clinton should have ended the embargo and air war when he had the chance; but nothing went the way it should have, and Bush Sr. and Clinton left Saddam in power. Like a wounded wild animal, Saddam leashed out and (probably) orchestrated 9-11, and is likely concocting heaven-knows-what -- and either he has to be taken out, or the US has to find a way to declare peace while somehow containing Saddam, which I'm not sure can be done. This half-war against Iraq, fought for over a decade, must end one way or another.

I personally hope the UN inspectors can maintain a permanent presence in Iraq to keep an eye on old Saddam. A US strike would result in three fake Saddams being killed and the real Saddam escaping to become another bin-Laden, but at least would contain Iraq's potential strategic weapons capabilities. It would require a long and difficult US military presence there, and entangle us even worse in the Mid-East.

There are no easy answers here. The great Lao-Tzu said that the side that enters a war with sadness is the side that is going to win. Let us hope that if we have to go to war, it is with sorrow -- and that we win.

Love,

 

[august spies]

val i dont even think the chinese communist party calls itself leftist anymore, its more right wing than the usa. no unions, the occupation of tibet, no free speech etc..

val if you are smart enough to know the history of saddam and the US, i dont understand why you think he orchastrated 9-11, not even bush would say that. they are going after the resources pure and simple. its nothing to kill innocent people over.

of course the inspectors should stay.