Q: Was British rule bad or good for India? (was: The rhetoric
Fri, 21 Mar 2003 12:16:16 -0400
Bill Stoddard wrote:
> Russell Turpin wrote:
>> Embarrassingly, I don't know enough of the
>> relevant history to mount much of an argument
>> either way. Does anyone want to take a stab
>> at it?
>>> "When important issues affecting the life of an individual are
>>> decided by somebody else, it makes no difference to the individual
>>> whether that somebody else is a king, a dictator, or society at large."
> Obviously not true in all cases. If Clinton were pursuing this war
> with Iraq, it would be accepted as an honorable and good thing by most
> of the fearful whiners (yea, sue me Phil A.). I read the referenced
> article in Arab news. I read this one too:
Total bullshit. Clinton bombed Sudan - and the movie "Wag the Dog" got
lots of free publicity. The media is controlled by the Nazi party
already - though Paula Zahn IS more attractive than Goebbels.
Although certainly I'm sure in the above case we'd have Bill O'Reilly
and company lining up to defend Saddam and the rights of a sovereign
nation. (and probably a "once-loyal and valuable" US ally and a bulwark
against Islamic fundamentalism as well). See the current treatment of
Pakistan as an example.
> and this gets right to the point that this is anti bush 100%.
> First folks -feared- the number of civ casualties would be huge, this
> would spark WWIII, blah blah blah. While it's not over till its over,
> the author of this article believes that the liberation of Iraq with
> low civ casualties is a distinct possibility. If it happens, then it
> is irrefutable that the Iraqi people will suffer fewer deaths at the
> hands of the liberators than had they continued to be ruled by Saddam
> and embargoed. But wait, the author is still afraid...
I am sure - given the attention given to the "low civilian casualty" PR
in Afghanistan - that equal attention will be given here. The facts -
well - they only come out when the military is put on trial - see the
trial of the pilots who killed Canadians - the propaganda line was that
it was self-defense - only when it came to trial did it come out that
they flew way off course just to attack their so-called allies.
> "Our fear is that the Bush administration, given its intentions,
> cannot be trusted to get Iraq’s future right."
> This comment has its roots in marxist, anti-capitalist, class warfare
> partisian hogwash. And the terrible thing about it is the author is
> probably not even aware that he has been brainwashed.
You must be applying the Bush doctrine - repeat the lie over and over
until its true. Just for the record the Bushs are ramming through their
tax cut this week - obviously that was the reason for the rush to war.
But of course to suggest so is class warfare.
> Most thinking folks in the USA see intrinsic value in one more country
> becoming a democracy. It's a win-win scenario for everyone but the
> dictator class. Will Iraq be ready for democracy in 2 years? 20
> years? I have no idea but it is an honorable goal. And it is unlikely
> that the dictator (or the committee acting as a dictator) that
> replaces Saddam will not be nearly as nasty and oppressive.
And much more pliable - sort of like Saddam when he was first installed
and blessed by the US. 20 years? Thats less then the time since
Rumsfield was last in Iraq, looking the other way as Saddam did his