Darfur - a genocide happening right in front of our eyes....

[Corno Dolce]

Madame Sybarite,

Dodge questions I do not do. Questions prefaced by never-ending condemnations of my adopted Country I don't, as a rule, answer, since they are debated on the grounds of emotionalism, not informed historical thinking.

Your implying that the Judicial system in America is racist goes beyond the pale. Yes, there are warts in every system but so it is with every system with human interaction. Furthermore I am repulsed by racism on the part of anyone or by any government entity or branch. I shall flip the question on it's head: Where is the perfect country with the perfect judicial system? I submit that there are none.

Furthermore, by whose standard, whose moral codex, whose system of *ethics* do you pre-judge the US *unethical* veto vote in the UN?

Respectfully,

Corno Dolce

Btw - What brought about the Theatre in Iraq? I would be amiss if I did not include the link below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Secu...esolution_1441

[Sybarite]

I'm sorry, Corno Dolce, I still can't see all those examples of countries that you mentioned coming running the US for help.

Surely you wouldn't have posted that without realising that you couldn't back up such a claim, would you? Especially as you now say that you don't 'dodge' questions.

As for ethics – the US like to claim that it is a Christian country. your president publically announces this – and tells us all about his personal Christianity all the time. You have generals who stand up in churches, in all their military regalia, and preach about how 'my god's bigger and better than their god'. It's a funny old kind of Christianity, though, since it has no easily discernible connection with that Jesus bloke who gave his name to the religion in question and whose teachings are supposedly contained in the gospels. Perhaps, in ethical terms, we could start by examining US government policy in terms of, say, the Beatitudes?

The US has made itself the 'leader of the free world' etc. It has decided that it is global cop. If it wants to play these roles, then it has to realise that it's going to be open to a great deal more criticism of its behaviour than many other countries – especially when it murders people in an illegal war, when it refuses to abide by the Geneva Conventions and when it openly breaks treaties that it is a signatory to.

Let me give you an example that, I think, perfectly illustrates why people throughout the world are seriously angry with the US government and state apparatus.

Take Iran. Iran is being naughty because it's developing nuclear power (it's light years from nuclear weapons, but let's not let such facts bother us, shall we?). So Iran has to be told off and threatened. By a country with nuclear arms. And a country that has signed non-proliferation treaties – but is still developing its own new nuclear weapons. And now there's even talk of military strikes against Iran ('cos Iraq has been such a rip-roaring success).

It's called hypocrisy. It's also, as anyone with half a brain cell will realise, damned dangerous for the entire world – and that is also why the rest of the world has a right (and, indeed, a duty) to make themselves aware of what is going on and to be prepared to comment on it, as here.

As to the justice system in the US, countless pieces of research have shown that murderers are more likely to be executed (another nice, Christian practice) in states where capital punishment is still allowed if they are black than white. (Not that this should surprise anyone who is aware of what has happened in New Orleans since Hurricane Katrina) It's also quite clear that money helps enormously to get off in the US – OJ is a perfect example. Even US writers Kander and Ebb satirised this aspect of your judicial culture in Chicago.

It's quite simple – if the US sets itself up as some world leader, it has to expect criticism when it makes a mess all over the place. It has implied that it is better than everyone else (hence it being self0appointed world leader and global cop), so it had better show that it can live up to the higher standards that one would expect of an entity in such a position.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to that list of examples of countries coming running to the White House to beg for help.

[Corno Dolce]

Sorry Sybarite,

I've said my piece about the tenor of this discussion which is terribly lopsided and unfruitful in it's continuation. No answer has come forth about the ethical system or moral codex with which the US is pre-judged for having made an *unethical veto vote*. Where is the perfect Country with the perfect Judicial system? No answer? So, really, there are no grounds for continuation of this discussion. And one more thing, I jestingly used the phrase *countries who come running for help* - I knew instinctively that someone's feathers would be ruffled. But only in good sport and with no malice intended.

Discussion closed!. - Thread remains open...

[Sybarite]

I gave you an answer. The US administration itself claims to be Christian. Plenty of US citizens claim that theirs is a Christian country. Well, it seems perfectly reasonable to judge the US on the basis of what the US government and many US citizens claim. And in terms of Christianity, very little US policy, either domestic or foreign, bears any relation to what Jesus Christ is supposed to have taught.

And I repeat – if the US decides to set itself up as some world leader and global cop, then it had better behave rather better than those it has decided to lead and preside over. The trouble is – it doesn't. No, there is no perfect country – but most of the rest of the world isn't going around claiming to be world leader and global cop, and pontificating to everyone else about how they should behave (telling the Dutch what they should do about drugs in their own country, for instance).

In specific terms of the veto – using the veto at every turn on a particular issue says that the US is putting particular external policies over and above the actual issues being debated at the UN. It has spent decades treating the UN with contempt, in other words. The US doesn't want an effective UN – it's world leader, remember.

And I take it that you can't find all those examples of countries coming running to the US for help, as you claimed earlier.

Tut tut tut, Corno Dolce ... and you claimed that you didn't dodge questions.

[simplemary]

It is easy to base recriminations on what SEEMS to be, rather than what IS. The U.S., Britain and other countries went to Iraq to stop what they perceived as a government ruled by a dictator who had his own citizens killed, including large scale genocide of the Kurds. I have observed that, as a global society, even when the intentions are honorable, they are later seen by some as being self serving. I sometimes wonder, if once Iraq and Iran go their own ways, what effect there will be in the future for countries with problems. Like Darfur. If any government goes in there, in a force similar to the attempted rescue of Iraq, so what else is there to do. You catch the offenders, try to rebuild and to give the people some structure for governance. It doesn't seem like that has ever been tried before Iraq. The rub is that the culture there doesn't really run to a single governing structure since they have historically been tribal and ruled by mullahs. So what structure do you try to suggest?

[Sybarite]

It is easy to base recriminations on what SEEMS to be, rather than what IS. The U.S., Britain and other countries went to Iraq to stop what they perceived as a government ruled by a dictator who had his own citizens killed, including large scale genocide of the Kurds...

I'm afraid this is not the case. If there was genuine concern about the situation of ordinary Iraqis, then why did George Bush call a halt to the march on Baghdad in 1991 – when there was universal global support, via the UN, for such action? Why did Tony Blair not even bother to sign an Early Day Motion in Parliament in 1988 after Saddam gassed the Kurds at Halabja? If the US cares about human rights in the Middle East, why is it so pally with the House of Saud – Saudi Arabia has an appalling human rights record (good business connections with the House of Bush might be a clue here).

The official reason given to the British public for the invasion was WMD and a claim that Saddam could hit the UK in 45 minutes. This was a lie. The British population were lied to.

And then one has to ask: 'why Iraq?' Why not Zimbabwe or North Korea – if the US and UK governments were really so concerned about people, why have they done nothing to aid these countries get rid of nasty dictators? If the US cares about democracy and human rights, why has it spent decades backing fascist dictators and far-right regimes in Central and South America, where they have 'disappeared' thousands of people? Why?

And no country has the right to simply go around removing regimes that they don't like from other countries and attempting to impose their idea of how the people in that country should live and govern themselves. Because if you allow that, then where does it stop? It certainly gives China the excuse to invade Taiwan or Burma, for instance.

... I have observed that, as a global society, even when the intentions are honorable, they are later seen by some as being self serving. I sometimes wonder, if once Iraq and Iran go their own ways, what effect there will be in the future for countries with problems...

~~polite cough~~ Iran IS going its 'own way'. Unfortunately, it's 'own way' and its "future", as with Iraq, has been determined for decades by interfering from the West. The West kept Saddam in power for years – he was our friend, because he was at war with Iran.

At which point it's worth briefly considering Iran's modern history too – the West helped maintain the shah in power for a long, long time, crushing democratic movements to achieve that. Eventually, the only group that was powerful enough to overthrow the shah was a militant religious and nationalistic one. After some years, change started to occur in the country – from within, from the Iranian people themselves. And so then what happened? Just as there was a possibility that more moderate leaders would be voted in at an election, that idiot in the White House starts sabre rattling, issuing threats and calling names – the "axis of evil" etc. So what does that achieve? Oh yes, it sends the Iranians back into the arms of more nationalistic leaders.

Like Darfur. If any government goes in there, in a force similar to the attempted rescue of Iraq, so what else is there to do. You catch the offenders, try to rebuild and to give the people some structure for governance. It doesn't seem like that has ever been tried before Iraq. The rub is that the culture there doesn't really run to a single governing structure since they have historically been tribal and ruled by mullahs. So what structure do you try to suggest?

How about letting people themselves decided what they want instead of trying to impose something on them? Unfashionable, I appreciate. How about not interfering with other countries and even letting them develop the way that they want (assuming that they do not interfere in those beyond their own borders)? How about not supporting dictators when it suits us? How about not supporting corrupt and vicious regimes (Saudi Arabia, for instance)? How about actually trying an ethical foreign policy?

Why do you seem to think that the US (and others) have any right whatsoever to attempt to impose something on other people? Can you not see how it causes resentment and a backlash? Can you not see the staggering arrogance of any one nation apparently thinking that it has all the answers to everything and can go and tell – nay, it can go an impose – these answers on other countries and cultures? How would you react if I waltzed into your home, univited, and started pontificating to you about how you should live your life, with a gun in my hand?

I the international community is asked for help by a country, that allows justification to consider going in. If one country invades another sovereign state, unprovoked, then that can allow legitimate reasons for military action (see Gulf War I). In a situation such as Darfur, only the UN could decide, democratically, to go in. If the UN has been emasculated over the years, then perhaps you need to ask why and by whom.

[methodistgirl]

Judy, that's the nature of capitalism. Big business wants more profits. And if they have to employ people who'll work longer for less money, then they'll do so.

Incidentally, you mention Romanian immigrants – don't forget that the whole of the US is built on immigration. The US a mongrel nation that robbed the indigenous population of their livelihoods, murdered millions of them and stuck the remaining ones into something akin to the bantustans in apartheid South Africa. Still, it meant that they could then get at their land and pretty well wipe out whole species of animal.

You see? Profit always comes before ethics.

I understand what you are saying. Believe me right now at times I
feel like the indians felt when our ancesters came over here on the
Mayflower. Every since some nation of people come over in boats
and we are left without jobs. Our immigration laws have gotten
tougher since 9/11 and the terrorist attack. The way that the war
in Iraq was done was all wrong. Instead officials should have sent
spies or some orginasation to go overthere and get this guy without
killing all of those people and arrest him instead. As for Rumsfield, he
and Powell was so red hot for war that Bush had to send the solders
as well as getting England, Mexico, Japan, and others involved in the
war. Tony Blair and President Bush are buddies. The united nations
did the same. I know this. The whole thing is a big mess that will
never get cleaned up. My little city should know better when the
county fair starts. I know that people from other nations need some
kind of means to stay on their feet. Here in america, people who
come get treated a whole lot better then our american blacks and the
poor. I'm one of the poor and I get ignored by the government.
If you came over here you would get a lot more help that I could.
Since I'm single and no child. Those at the foodstamp office gives
me that 'get a job' look. If I was about 7 months pregnant and single
they would do what that they could to help. Probably to get rid of
the kid! The mother that had me wound up losing me to a middle
aged couple. So tell me what you think.
judy tooley

[simplemary]

I'm afraid this is not the case. If there was genuine concern about the situation of ordinary Iraqis, then why did George Bush call a halt to the march on Baghdad in 1991 – when there was universal global support, via the UN, for such action? Why did Tony Blair not even bother to sign an Early Day Motion in Parliament in 1988 after Saddam gassed the Kurds at Halabja?

I believe after Saddam lost Kuwait and was soundly defeated in his efforts, the thought was that the country would move forward on its own. Certainly its army was in tatters.

If the US cares about human rights in the Middle East, why is it so pally with the House of Saud – Saudi Arabia has an appalling human rights record (good business connections with the House of Bush might be a clue here).

The situation with the House of Saud goes way back to the early 1900s. Maybe you could go back and read the comments from back then

And no country has the right to simply go around removing regimes that they don't like from other countries and attempting to impose their idea of how the people in that country should live and govern themselves. Because if you allow that, then where does it stop? It certainly gives China the excuse to invade Taiwan or Burma, for instance.

No one gets permission for their actions. It is their decision to act or react. Diplomacy in the name of countries and religion has historically has involved itself in politics, the U.S. and Britain did not start it. It is unfortunate for the Iraqi people that so many of the moderate leaders who have tried to make a difference have been killed. This is because the killers/insurgents have chosen to do this,; it is certainly not a response from the citizens of the country and is not directed at the military forces who are there. If we go with your conclusions, then Darfur, the Iraqi genocides and others were because of involvement/interference of other countries in their government.

How about letting people themselves decided what they want instead of trying to impose something on them? Unfashionable, I appreciate. How about not interfering with other countries and even letting them develop the way that they want (assuming that they do not interfere in those beyond their own borders)? How about not supporting dictators when it suits us? How about not supporting corrupt and vicious regimes (Saudi Arabia, for instance)? How about actually trying an ethical foreign policy?

Just who would you ask if they need help? Would you ask the leaders or the victims? And, who would have the power to accept or decline? I always think of the alien who lands and asks to be taken to your leader.

Why do you seem to think that the US (and others) have any right whatsoever to attempt to impose something on other people? Can you not see how it causes resentment and a backlash?

No good deed goes unpunished. While we cannot stand by and allow mistreatment of people, the U.S. has generally tried to be there in times of disaster. It is a quandary and once the decision is made, then it has to be followed through to the end. To put in another cliche, sometimes things look like a disaster in the middle and I think that is where the situation with Iraq and Iran is.

I the international community is asked for help by a country, that allows justification to consider going in. If one country invades another sovereign state, unprovoked, then that can allow legitimate reasons for military action (see Gulf War I). In a situation such as Darfur, only the UN could decide, democratically, to go in.

In a perfect world everyone would have the benefit of the troubled country at heart, without further agendas. But everyone has vested interests and loyalties. The view of the U.S. is that terrorism in the name of spreading that particular thread of Muslim religion is not acceptable.

[Sybarite]

I believe after Saddam lost Kuwait and was soundly defeated in his efforts, the thought was that the country would move forward on its own. Certainly its army was in tatters...

Yes, and with that being the situation, Saddam could have easily been deposed then and there, with global (via the UN) backing. This was three years after he gassed the Kurds at Halabja, so you can't go around claiming that the US (and anyone else) invaded this time because Saddam was nasty to the Kurds, when they had had the opportunity to see the job to its conclusion in 1991 – but decided not to.

... The situation with the House of Saud goes way back to the early 1900s...

Yes. I am aware of this.

... Maybe you could go back and read the comments from back then

Generally speaking, I tend to treat propaganda as just that. However, this does not alter the fact that Saudia Arabia has an appalling human rights record – it's a wonder that the caring US government didn't invade Saudi and help them to become a democracy, isn't it? Just think – all those women liberated, for instance ...

No human rights in Saudi Arabia.

... No one gets permission for their actions...

Eh? Have you heard of international law? And what do you think the UN is supposed to do?

... It is their decision to act or react. Diplomacy in the name of countries and religion has historically has involved itself in politics, the U.S. and Britain did not start it...

Nobody has said that the US and UK started anything – although it's unclear what you are actually suggesting they didn't start

... It is unfortunate for the Iraqi people that so many of the moderate leaders who have tried to make a difference have been killed...

Shame that the US and the UK and others were supporting him at the time, eh? You cannot get around this – you can't just try to rpetend, conveniently, that it didn't happen. It did. It's no good trying to claim some moral high ground for the US over its invasion of Iraq when it helped to maintain Saddam in power for years, when it helped supply him with weapons, for instance, for years.

... This is because the killers/insurgents have chosen to do this,; it is certainly not a response from the citizens of the country and is not directed at the military forces who are there...

Soldiers ARE being killed by insurgents. Let's be quite clear about one or two things: the insurgency is a direct result of the illegal invasion and war. There was no link between Saddam and Al-Queda – that was another lie that your president and government told you. The US and UK have effectively done Bin Laden's work for him by getting rid of Saddam and opening up the country to the very forces of militant religious fundamentalism that the US government lied about being linked to Saddam. If it wasn't so damned tragic, it would be funny. Plenty of people saw the post-war chaos coming, so either the US and UK governments are really dumb or they don't give a damn about ordinary Iraqi people. Actually, at this point let us remind ourselves that, after the invasion, the US forces guarded the oil ministry but just let hospitals (and museums, for that matter) be looted. So much for caring about ordinary people, eh?

... If we go with your conclusions, then Darfur, the Iraqi genocides and others were because of involvement/interference of other countries in their government....

I do not know enough about the history of the situation in Darfur to comment on that. But yes, the situation in Iraq has, in part, been created by interfering from outside. Just as the situation in Iran has. Those are matters of historic fact.

... Just who would you ask if they need help?

It depends on the situation. If it's a natural disaster, such as the tsunami, one might ask the government if they need help. Sometimes, you wait for people to ask you. I currently work for an organisation that has fraternal links to similar organisations in Zimbabwe that happen to be part of the opposition to Mugabe. We don't try to tell them what they should do – we wait and, if and when they ask us for help, we try to provide what they ask for. It's really not rocket science.

... Would you ask the leaders or the victims?

See above.

... No good deed goes unpunished...

Eh? What does this mean?

... While we cannot stand by and allow mistreatment of people, the U.S. has generally tried to be there in times of disaster...

I'm sorry, but that's rubbish. The US has bombed more countries, more times than any other nation on the Earth since WWII. The US has stood in the way of democracy in many countries – particularly in Central and South America, prefering to bolster up right-wing and fascist dictatorships. The US has allowed and encouraged and helped with the "mistreatment of people" when it suits its own political agenda.

... It is a quandary and once the decision is made, then it has to be followed through to the end. To put in another cliche, sometimes things look like a disaster in the middle and I think that is where the situation with Iraq and Iran is...

Hopefully it'll turn out like Vietnam, eh? And why do you keep mentioning Iran? Are you being softened up in the States for military action there? One of these days, perhaps you'll start asking why the people who are sent to do the White House's dirty work are invariably from poor backgrounds – senators and governors and presidents don't send their children to be canon fodder, do they?

... In a perfect world everyone would have the benefit of the troubled country at heart, without further agendas....

So now you admit the possibility that the US government's motives aren't just about being nice to people?

... But everyone has vested interests and loyalties. The view of the U.S. is that terrorism in the name of spreading that particular thread of Muslim religion is not acceptable.

This is most comforting, since I live in a country where the windows of my own home have been rattled by the bombs of a terrorist campaign that was supported by many in your country, who gave money to pay for the bombs and guns.

Iraq is not about terrorism – there was no terrorist link. The war is what has opened up that particular problem.

You're not wrong about agendas, but you need to inform yourself a little about the motives of your government. Oil – not in the obvious way, but in terms of attempting to break the power of Opec (see the Economist for an article about this just before the invasion). See all the stuff put out by the Project for the New American Century, even before Dubya was elected, making it quite clear what the neo-cons had in mind. Consider the question of the military-industrial complex and what Eisenhower had to say about that (and don't forget that your tax dollars are being spent in ever-increasing amounts on developing new ways to kill people, including nuclear weapons, the development of which break treaties that the US is a signatory to). And money – just plain, good old-fashioned profit: think Haliburton and the corrupt way in which companies have been raking in the cash since the invasion – and with private armies murdering with impunity (Blackwater).

[Sybarite]

Comments on the situation in Darfur from the president of Sudan.

[methodistgirl]

Sybrite, you are talking about President Bush #1. He was not like this
president who by the way is his son. The president has a bully like
personality while his dad Bush #1 was Ronald Reagan's puppet. The
president we have now is a bit of a hothead. He will do anything to
start something. I hate to say that about our own president but it's
true. If he didn't like a member of his cabinet he would kick them out
and hire another one which kept the congress and senators busy on
their toes instead of doing what really matters.
judy tooley