BS: Who defines 'liberation'?

Subject: BS: Who defines 'liberation'?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 04:06 PM

Who defines "liberation"? Is it...

a)George Bush
b)Donald Rumsfeld
c)Adolf Hitler
d)Josef Stalin
e)Mao Tse-tung
f)Pol Pot
g)Colin Powell
h)Dick Cheney
i)Benito Mussolini
j)Saddam Hussein
k)Tommy Franks
l)Heinz Guderian
m)Ariel Sharon

Or

n)All of the above...?

Whaddya think? All these guys have claimed to be liberators. They have all launched or supported or ordered military attacks across the borders of small countries in order to "liberate" some lucky bunch of people who are not so well-armed as they. Some have done it repeatedly. Some hope to do it again soon in the near future...in places like Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc...

So...who gets to define "liberation"???

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Who defines 'liberation'?
From: MMario
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 04:07 PM

as in most history - the winner.

Subject: RE: BS: Who defines 'liberation'?
From: Troll
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 04:09 PM

'Nuff Sed.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Who defines 'liberation'?
From: Don Firth
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 04:11 PM

George Orwell?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Who defines 'liberation'?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 04:29 PM

I believe you've found the answer, Mario.

Subject: RE: BS: Who defines 'liberation'?
From: gnu
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 04:43 PM

Have we two or more threads on the same topic ? Could we gentlepeople centralize the discussion please ? LH.... the rich ? I'm going back to the Babylon thread as I assume you made your point much more eloquently there.... perhaps you could repost your arguements there... or am I missing the difference ?

Subject: RE: BS: Who defines 'liberation'?
From: gnu
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 05:07 PM

Don't pay any attention... I'm wet, cold, tired and hungry and I won't even be awake in an hour. G'night.

Subject: RE: BS: Who defines 'liberation'?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 05:17 PM

Yeah. That's the problem with posting on different threads...

Subject: RE: BS: Who defines 'liberation'?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 05:24 PM

You'll notice, when they named this war, they didn't call it Operation Iraqi Liberation, but Operation Iraqi Freedom. I think someone unusually bright for that kind of environment actually looked at the initials involved, and realised the Liberation version wouldn't be such a clever idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Who defines 'liberation'?
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 06:55 PM

Right -- now all we have to do is secure all those Oif wells....

A

Subject: RE: BS: Who defines 'liberation'?
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 07:04 PM

On second thought, LH, given that you are currently enjoy civil liberty, and do not run the risk of having your balls fried by raw electrical wires, being suspended from a pole, or fed into a shredder feet first for speaking about your disagreements with M. Chretien -- why don't you try coming up with a definition? Your eloquence is surely up to the task, I am confident.

Oh, and don't forget the pleasures of a rule of law, and a government which to some degree honors its origins are with the citizens, and relies on their goodwill rather than their fear for its continuation. Oh, and a judicial branch serving to balance the executive, and constraints on the police in their actions against individuals, and whatever else your government acknowledges as its legal boundaries.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Who defines 'liberation'?
From: GUEST, heric
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 07:14 PM

and big macs. LOTS of big macs. OR double whoppers whenever you want.

Subject: RE: BS: Who defines 'liberation'?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 10:55 PM

Oh, for sure, Amos. I am well aware of my good fortune in that I am located in Canada. Another neat thing about being here is that I can buy the new plastic model kits when they come out (a hobby I'm into in a big way), and there are all kinds of marvelous guitars available.

As for Jean Chretien, well, I am glad he's kept Canada out of the fighting, so I am feeling more kindly than usual toward Jean. He's walking that fine line right now...tricky business, that is, considering the economic harm the USA can do us whenever they wish to.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Who defines 'liberation'?
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 03 - 11:22 PM

Well, old friend, I submit that you have neatly sidestepped my question.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Who defines 'liberation'?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 06:33 AM

Those kind of torture techniques Amos mentioned are also pretty well documented in countries at times when they were good friends of the then US and UK governments, such as Chile and of course Saddam's Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Who defines 'liberation'?
From: Sam L
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 09:25 AM

Well, I define liberation according to some civil liberties and a few basic human rights. There really are different qualities of peace, and some of them not so lovely as it sounds. I find overly broad positions and absurdly broad comparisons of "liberators" kind of tiresome. I can't get with it.

   The campaign toward the current war has probably done a lot to undermine hopes for a liberated and lasting peace, by alienating important allies, and projecting righteous arrogance. I'll go that far.

Subject: RE: BS: Who defines 'liberation'?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 09:42 AM

Ahhh....

Okay, Amos, I get you. Here's my answer.

I am against aggression. I am against unprovoked invasions of small countries by large, hypocritical countries who invade for their own gain, while trying to concoct a moral fig lead with with to cover themselves.

I care not whether the small country being invaded is democratic or undemocratic, that does not give large countries a right to attack and occupy it without provocation, and violate international law in so doing.

Stalin's Russia was extremely undemocratic. That did not justify the Nazi attack on Russia in '41 (although Hitler's propaganda called it a "liberation"). The attack caused the deaths of many millions of Russians and Germans and other people in the end, and did not liberate anybody (except from life itself...). I note that the vast majority of Russians were not grateful to the Nazis afterward, and that Stalin was ultimately greatly strengthened in popularity among his own people as a result of the German attack.

Poland was not a very democratic place in '39, I don't think. Nor was Yugoslavia in '41. I'm not sure about Finland, but I doubt that it was as democratic as we are in North America. All 3 of those small countries were attacked ruthlessly by, respectively, Germany, Germany, and Soviet Russia...all for direct material gain for the aggressor.

The USA and Britain have now attacked Iraq for direct material gain, NOT because Iraq is undemocratic. They have done it without solid evidence of any weapons of mass destruction. They have scorned world opinion, scorned the U.N., violated international law, lied, presented false evidence and forged documents, and (in the case of Britain) defied the opinion of their own public who elected Tony Blair to represent them.

They are no better than Hitler and Mussolini, and they are "liberating" no one. They will drop the Kurds and anyone else foolish enough to fight for them like a hot potatoe as soon as they no longer need them. They've done it before, and they'll do it again.

I don't call aggressors "liberators", not even when they attack people who are as bad as themselves or even worse (if that would be possible).

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Who defines 'liberation'?
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 09:48 AM

The yanks liberated sky dome last night.......God Bless America indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Who defines 'liberation'?
From: Amos
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 10:30 AM

Little Hawk:

I don't know where all this material gain is coming from, and I think the expenses of this war from the national coffers would probably refute such claims. I have not traced all the copnspiracy assertions out there but I did notice that Cheny's Haliburton just lost their multi-million contract for reconstruction work. WHere's the material gain?

I grant you the evidence that was provided to the public about WMD was pathetic, and it incensed me. But I cannot say yea or nay on the existence of other evidence.

As for aggression, in general, may you live free of it forever.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Who defines 'liberation'?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 01:08 PM

Amen to that, Amos!

I agree with you that the material gains of this war are highly unlikely to match the incredible expenses (in money, materiel, lives, and international credibility)...but...I don't think the guys who engineered this effort were fully cognizant of that. They thought (hoped) that the Iraquis would all just surrender in a couple of days. They then anticipated managing Iraqui oil in a very lucrative fasion, and establishing a handy strategic base in Iraq for attacking Iran, dominating the whole Middle East, and further accessing the Caspian oil region. Wishful thinking by armchair generals in business suits.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Who defines 'liberation'?
From: alanabit
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 01:29 PM

I asked my students (bankers) who would pay for this war. They grimaced and said,"We will". Indeed, ordinary taxpayers in many countries will foot the bill for this war. I don't see oil companies, weapons manufacturers, building contractors or logistical support companies losing a lot of money. The bankers and major shareholders are going to do very well out of this war. Some of the veterans, relatives and other taxpayers may be a little less fortunate.

Subject: RE: BS: Who defines 'liberation'?
From: Sam L
Date: 01 Apr 03 - 01:59 PM

well, pre-american cultures were slaughtered and subjugated for material gain by stronger aggressors, and it definitely didn't liberate them, but it did some things for some people, down the line, into the bargain, even if that wasn't the original motive.

You know, you can't really equate different things, regardless of whether they are both wrong, or bad--nothing is really the same thing as something else. You can't equate democracy with basic human rights, across the board, for instance. I don't believe in the singlular motives of individual Great Men shaping events, or that the future can be predicted. Others can wait for countries to do the right things for soley the right reasons, and wait as long as they care to.

   But Iraq has a history of aggression, which landed them into terms of a cease fire, and while the case made for war was weak, the legality is murky, especially to me, since I'm actually not an expert in international law. It can be hoped that succesive leadership and political will may pull some good out of the aftermath, difficult as that may seem to be. Blair and Bush aren't kings. Or, if not, I guess we can always relax into idealistic cynicism, remember our protests, and say we told everybody so.