On Tuesday, February 11, 2003, at 10:27 AM, joe andress wrote:

>> with replies by Fred White
>
>> Our problem is that, generally, we keep helping the rich, for business
>> reasons. We supported the Shah of Iran in spite of his murderous
>> dictatorship (we needed the oil). The Iranians ultimately overthrew
>> him, no thanks to us. No wonder they came to hate us.
>
> And the current Iranian government dictatorhip is better that the Shah
> (no, I m not defending the Shah), one that enslaves an entire country
> according to the view of a select few.
>
> MMMMM, and the current govenment has not murdered anyone?
>
> Am I the only one who thinks that Fred dislikes more affluent
> individuals or business in general. As I recall, and I may be wrong,
> the US was going through major changes in the oil prices and everyone
> was screaming about the lack of the US government doing anything.

I apologize. My wording was very misleading. I do believe in
appropriate diplomatic activity to support our businesses. What I am
against is offensive, unnecessary and failed military activity.

>>> If a government is starving its own people and we send food, we are
>>> propping
>>> up a repressive government.
>>>
>>> If a government is starving its own people and we do not send food,
>>> we
>>> are
>>> heartless and greedy.
>
>> We have done neither of the above to/for Cuba or Iraq. The suffering
>> of
>> the people in those countries has been compounded by US led sanctions
>> (which you failed to refer to).
>
> MMMMM, seems to me that neither country has actively requested US food
> aid, their govenments appear; at least to me, be the ones who have
> think they know all the answers for their people.

This time, the misunderstanding is yours. I don't know how economically
successful Cuba and Iraq would be without the sanctions but, remember,
the sanctions are designed to cause suffering of the people in the
hopes that they will rise up and overthrow their US disapproved
leaders. In the case of Cuba, so close to Florida, the suffering
motivated many of them to risk (and lose) their lives by escaping to
Florida. Note that, despite the suffering (and loss of lives) neither
of these countries overthrew their leaders. If you've ever played
tennis you have learned the advice "Never change a winning game. Always
change a losing game.".

>>> If a government is facing revolution and we assist it, we are
>>> propping
>>> up a
>>> repressive government.
>
>> Like we did with Iran.
>
> Again, the current Iranian government is not more repressive that the
> Shah. Is Iran better off now that under the Shah. Granted, any form of
> repressive government is not good, but which is worse.
>
>>> If a government is facing revolution and we do not assist it, we are
>>> heartless and greedy.
>
>> Not in the eyes of the revolutionaries.
>
> But the revolutionaries have their own agenda and thus their own set
> of eyes. Did the Iranian revolutionaries seek to remove the
> repressions of the Shah and replace with their own more extensive
> repression.
>
>>> If a government is facing revolution and we assist the
>>> revolutionaries, we
>>> are interfering in another nations internal affairs.
>
>> If the government is repressive and if the revolutionaries solicit our
>> help, it would be OK to help them even if it won't help us get oil.
>
> Again the revoutionaries were totally right in their ideas and their
> own form of a repressive government, regardless of the influence of
> oil.
>
> Unlike the talking heads on various news media programs, I don't
> pretent to know the answers. However, I do feel that based on history
> within the last 100 years has show that to take a head in the sand
> approach to Iraq is not a wise a idea.
> I m not advocating an armed conflict; however, Iraq has already proven
> time and time again over the last 10 years that they have no
> intentions of complying.

Who are we to dictate the "rules of compliance"? Do we intend to impose
those "rules" on every nation on Earth? How come we can have weapons of
mass destruction but others can't?

>  Do we wait until Iran had used a nuclear, chemical or biological
> weapon before the US does anything.
>
> Yeah, and the same countries and individuals today who cry against the
> war mongering US; will be crying about "Why didn't US do something
> earlier".

There are always people who will take that stance. Unless and until we
become but One World, we will always face such problems. The vast
majority of people, when not driven by fear, will opt for constraint.
Our civil laws don't permit killing except in self defense. That's the
way the cookie crumbles.

FW

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *