On 26/09/2011 11:48 AM, Russell Coker wrote:
On Mon, 26 Sep 2011, Mike Mitchell<m.mitch@exemail.com.au> wrote:
On 26/09/2011 12:00 AM, Russell Coker wrote:
This is a rhetorical technique that's often used by unsympathetic members of the majority group to deny decent treatment to members of a minority group. Just say "oh I'm all for treating the real victims well, but the ones we see aren't real victims so we should do nothing for them".
That comment is obtuse and unfair. You are accusing me of using the same technique used by yourself against the wealthy. Something I complained about bitterly. I am saying that there are people who need our compassion but we are blinded by those standing in our faces.
Are you saying that I lack compassion for the "poor" (sic) rich people?
No. I am saying you lack compassion. You still treat those you choose to call "rich" as the racists treat black skinned people. Bigotry, including yours toward those "rich", comes from ignorance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_Iraq_War_casualties
The death toll in Iraq has been high since the occupation and the death toll in Afghanistan is probably higher - although I am not aware of any good research.
I think that the death toll is high enough to make it reasonable to desire refuge in another country.
Desirable but not mandatory. The West should concentrate on improving their lot at home.
Another possibility is to just stop creating victims. If the Kurds and Shia in Iraq were given referendum on having their provinces become separate countries then things would calm down a lot there. Then instead of investing so much blood and money in trying to achieve the impossible (make Iraq a united country without having a despot like Saddam holding it together) attention could be focussed on improving things in Afghanistan.
Best comment on the subject so far and I agree with the sentiment in a broad scale use. If we'd left the tyrant alone the people of Iraq would be better off. Even then we, the west, could have continued strong diplomatic action to get him to do less harm to his people.
The "strong diplomatic action" isn't such a good thing, recall the claims that 500,000 Iraqi children died as a result of trade embargos.
When it comes to Iraq and Afghanistan there are no good options, just less evil options. That area has been a basket case for generations. In some ways, even pre the biblical era.
Leaving the tyrant alone isn't required either, the CIA decided to withdraw support for a rebellion against Saddam after the Kuwait war. The US also supported Saddam for a long time before the invasion of Kuwait. If the US had merely refrained from supporting Saddam or had given the promised support to the rebellion then things would be different there.
If the US hadn't screwed around around, swapping sides every few years, who knows what would have happened. For that matter, who knows what other US screw ups haven't we heard about?
As for Afghanistan, the US screwed the whole strategy up. Bludgeoning their way into a country is just dumb! They bombed those suckers all the way back to the stone-age. Damn pity they were already there.
They shouldn't have encouraged the USSR to invade there in the first place, that was what really messed things up.
I hadn't heard that the US encouraged the USSR to invade but it wouldn't surprise me. It's a "good" tactic to screw up the USSR. The US has no memory or considers themselves better than "history". If they had any brains they would have realised the British had tried almost everything they are trying to do now and failed, just like they are. In many ways the USA is only up to Britons 1700's. Where laissez-faire and obesity was the norm, dominance of the seas was mandatory and self-belief exceeded their ability. Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Cheers, Mike