Devil's advocacy doesn't build understanding.

Post #20,328 by Another Scott 12/5/01 11:17:24 AM Reply	Devil's advocacy doesn't build understanding. Hi TT, I asked a specific question. If Cuba "retaliate" against what it deem as US terrorist acts, what will you do? Why does the US get to define for the world what constitute terrorist actions? "You are with us or you are with the terrorists". Speaks volume, no? I don't think so. Terrorism has a generally well understood meaning. You're using the word outside that generally understood meaning. Bush's "rhetorical flourishes" are simplifications of the US policy of doing all it can to end global terrorism. In order to do so, the US believes it must convince others to end all support for them. Do you disagree with his statement? If so, why and how? You're mixing hypotheticals with actual events and using fuzzy language thus creating a jumble which is difficult to discuss. And you're using language which will cause people talking with you to argue about definitions rather than the meat of the issues which are bothering you. It's clear that you have differences with US foreign policies, but I haven't seen you offer explanations of what you think the US should have done differently. Should the US have supported Ortega? Should the US have supported Castro? Should the US have done things differently in Afghanistan? Should the US have done nothing when Iraq invaded Kuwait? If so, what and why? Or, if you want to discuss some other issue, please state what you think the US did wrong and what it should have done differently. Thanks. Cheers, Scott.
Post #20,334 by TTC 12/5/01 11:44:44 AM Reply	Re: Devil's advocacy doesn't build understanding. Does sovereign of a nation still mean anything to the US? If so, it's involvement in the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was the right one, endorsed by almost every nation. But then there's Yugoslavia etc, where the US took specific sides in a sovereign nation's internal conflict. Will the US welcome such intervention by other countries? Does international law still mean anything to the US? If so, on what basis is the US using to justify carpet bombing a sovereign country (Afghanistan) based on SUSPECTED link of terrorism when request to produce evidence is ignored and disdainfully brushed aside. Does the UN still mean anything to the US? If so, why does it choose to ignore the UN proposed sanction and went ahead with its own against Iraq? And I would really appreciate if you can define TERRORISM as used by your President Bush. What constitute terrorism? Mindless bombing of civilians? Premeditated killing? What do you call bombing of areas with KNOWN civilian population? What do you call knowingly cutting off food and medical supply? Collateral damage? Why is it that quite a number of folks here can so easily justify the death of tens/hundreds/thousands of civilians in Iraq/Afghanistan etc caused by the US actions (if you prefer, REaction)? If asking that folks view world events from the WORLD'S (that is, non-US) perspectives and not purely the US perspective is Devil's advocacy, then so be it.
Post #20,344 by bepatient 12/5/01 1:19:25 PM Reply	Interesting. What do you call knowingly cutting off food and medical supply? This is an interesting addition. FOr it appears that by its inclusion, you think the US is under some obligation to supply food and meds to everyone...and when we don't...we're guilty of terrorism. Wow. Thats deep. And Iraqi sanctions? Iraq hasn't complied with anyone's demands for sanction relief. And we have allowed them to sell exchange oil in return for food and humanitarian supplies. And, you say, the Iraqi people never see it?? Big surprise from the Hussein regime, eh? So...it appears that you think the US should be the world's benefactor...yet remain uninvolved in world individual sovereign politic (even if it appears that genocide is part of that politic) Interesting. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #20,358 by jake123 12/5/01 3:11:07 PM Reply	One point about food and medicine You've slightly oversimplified here. The US doesn't just not supply... they threaten to punish others who would like to supply, whether for commercial or altruistic reasons, and actively patrol shipping lanes to ensure that these people are not able to deliver food or medicine. I'm talking about Iraq in this case. Actually, Castro didn't pick his friends, the US picked theirs. They just happened to pick the guy (Batista) that was willing to kill people to keep unions out of US owned factories. The problem was that the US decided to be friends with the guy who was so egregiously abusive of his power that they managed to alienate the vast majority of the citizens of Cuba. Finally, you should really read about the CIA, Nicaragua, and the CIA's involvement in the California cocaine trade to raise money for their covert war in Nicaragua. You'll find that there are congress critters that find the idea of a US gov't agency selling highly addictive drugs to US citizens in order to raise money for people with a stated policy of shelling schools and hospitals somewhat... problematic. -- ---------------------------------------------------------- * Jack Troughton jake at jakesplace.dhs.org * * [link\|http://jakesplace.dhs.org\|[link\|http://jakesplace.dhs.org\|http://jakesplace.dhs.org]] [link\|ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org\|[link\|ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org\|ftp://jakesplace.dhs.org]] * * Montr\ufffdal PQ Canada [link\|news://jakesplace.dhs.org\|news://jakesplace.dhs.org] * ----------------------------------------------------------
Post #20,382 by bepatient 12/5/01 5:22:45 PM Reply	On Nicaragua ...that was not a stellar moment in US foreign policy. Cuba...well...we pissed them off...they picked a guy who decided it was better to align with our principle enemy. While I can understand the overall reasons for doing so...allowing nukes to be shipped there and pointed at us was..well...ill-advised considering their proximity. And with Iraq...we may patrol the shipping lanes...but I have not...to date...heard of us threatening any humanitarian aid (meds and food) And we would threaten...and have...companies who do business against our will...but it happens all the time and we largely do nothing...unless the materials in question have military applications...and even them sometimes we do nothing (think China) You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #20,395 by Simon_Jester 12/5/01 6:22:05 PM 12/5/01 8:07:10 PM Reply	So the US has no blame whatsoever? Cuba...well...we pissed them off...they picked a guy who decided it was better to align with our principle enemy. Wait a minute! You tossed off our support for ol' Batista really fast there. Should the US be able to rape the resource of any country it feels like? Hell, at least you admitted we pissed them off. Let's go into details why. Come on, the US is blameless, no? (edited - mixed up Balista with yet someone else entirely.) Edited by Simon_Jester Dec. 5, 2001, 08:07:10 PM EST Expand All History
Post #20,409 by bepatient 12/5/01 8:23:42 PM Reply	No Batista was in charge for close to 25 years. Unless you think we should have had him overthrown, which the cubans did (actually he more or less just split). The same thing happened with Machado before that...we loved him...the people hated him and they kicked his ass out too. You were born...and so you're free...so Happy Birthday! _{Laurie Anderson} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]

Welcome to IWETHEY!