French and Russian Collaborations with Saddam Hussein Begin to Surface

[Pax]

Minutemen through Mujahedin are people that did not relax and wait for things to fix themsleves.

You automatically assume that democracy will make them(all the countries that don't like us) like us. France is democracy and we don't seem to approve of that government. So is Venezuela. We don't like that one either. If we were uninvolved with there problems then they could not blame us in anyway. Canada is a rich country, The Netherlands is a rich country. They don't have a terrorist problem. It's not because we are the most powerful country. It's because of our involvement in their affairs. Democracy is not a cure all.

I really think that all sides need to sit down, discuss, and treat each other with respect and fairness before any true peace can come about.

When and how do you think terrorism is going to fade. The root cause is not lack of democracy. How can it be.
The root cause is most likely Political, religous and cultural intolerance among Muslim's and Christian's ie, East and West.

The People in Iraq seem to want A religous Fundamentalist government and the U.S. is trying to stop that. Is it a government that reflects the will of the people or the will of the Bush Administration.

The link that the Patriot Act has to the Iraq War is that Terrorism and the use of WMD is used to justify both.

Your civil liberties have been under attack since the constitution was written. Think about slavery, voting, drinking, child labor, fair wages and etc...

Remember the Spanish American War. That was an unjust war of conquest against the Spanish. Unjust in that the premises for war was wrong. We should seek to minimize these injustices when possible. Our responsibility to our children is to make sure they grow up free.

My point is that the some people in power intend on the U.S. becoming an empire which is already proven in the Project for a new american century website(republican think tank)

[Sava]

The Patriot act was written before 9-11

[Pax]

I don't know when it was written. It was signed into law on October 26, 2001.

[Ned]

PAX A, I think that when Americans say democracy, they think in terms of their own government: a government of checks and balances that has institutional mechanisms to prevent a tyranny of a majority and that guarantees basic rights, such as freedom of speech and of religion.

So, the it is not inconsistent for the US to say that it favors democracy in Iraq while opposing a Shi'ite-dominated theocratic form of government -- even if the majority of the Shi'ites want this.

The problem I see that if we leave before a strong Supreme Court is installed, the Shi'ites will simply tear up the new constitution and run things the way they want, possibly forcing a civil war with the Sunni's, Christians and Kurds.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus Minutemen through Mujahedin are people that did not relax and wait for things to fix themsleves.

Um, all I was saying that a determined populace with small arms that adopts guerrilla tactics can defeat a modern army, in response to your assertion that a bunch of hicks are no match for 'M1's and Tomahawks'. History does not back up that assertion.

Originally posted by Pax Africanus

You automatically assume that democracy will make them(all the countries that don't like us) like us.

Um, no, I never said that democratic Arab states would 'like us'. Feel free to reread my post. I only said that they would produce less terrorists.

Originally posted by Pax Africanus

The People in Iraq seem to want A religous Fundamentalist government.

On what do you base this assertion? A few choice photographs like the one that was once Sava's avatar? I won't go so far as to say they don't want a theocracy, so don't go so far as to say they do. We have nothing but sensationalized media glimpses to make judgements on, and the fact is that none of us here know what a majority of reasonable Iraqis want.

Originally posted by Pax Africanus

Remember the Spanish American War. That was an unjust war of conquest against the Spanish.

Correct. What's your point? When did I say 'The United States has been completely moral throughout its existence, and all the wars it has fought were just?' If I typed that and forgot, let me know, but otherwise getting into the S-A War just sounds like rambling, no offense.

Originally posted by Pax Africanus

My point is that the some people in power intend on the U.S. becoming an empire which is already proven in the Project for a new american century website(republican think tank)

There is a difference between empire and tyranny. The U.S. can oppress other nations while still having freedom within its own borders. When I say tyranny I mean within our own country.

When right-wingers say the U.S. is fighting for 'freedom' like a broken record, they don't all mean that the U.S. is a force for freedom around the globe. Sometimes they mean the U.S. is a force for freedom within the U.S. itself, and hence they aren't being inconsistent.

[Ned]

Darius, Why did you agree that the war with Spain was an unjust war of conquest? That war was very similar to the current war with Saddam: a war of liberation. It cannot be unjust to liberate people from a brutal, oppressive regime and give them liberty and justice.

If this new twist on the Spanish-American war is now being taught in schools, well it appears to be more of the same far left revision history that we have become so familiar with listening the Che and Propaganda, for example.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Ned
Darius, Why did you agree that the war with Spain was an unjust war of conquest? That war was very similar to the current war with Saddam: a war of liberation. It cannot be unjust to liberate people from a brutal, oppressive regime and give them liberty and justice.

I never heard of liberation alone being an adequate justification for war, by any definition. Usually it's just icing on the cake, not a motivation in and of itself.

Even if liberation were justification on its own, we didn't really complete our goal of liberation since in Cuba we just replaced one oppressor with another, and we turned the Phillippines into a possession instead of a liberated and independent friend.

If Iraq ends up becoming a client state, we'll have made the same mistake. I hope to god we don't.

Originally posted by Ned

If this new twist on the Spanish-American war is now being taught in schools, well it appears to be more of the same far left revision history that we have become so familiar with listening the Che and Propaganda, for example.

Yes, in my class we were taught that the Maine disaster was actually an accidental explosion, and that we blamed it on the Spanish as an excuse for an expansionist war. There is a lot of evidence that this was indeed the case.

[Arrian]

That's my understanding, too. I recall being taught in school that the Maine explosion was questionable. Since then, I've seen a documentary or two which strongly suggest the Spanish had nothing to do with the Maine disaster.

-Arrian

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ned
Darius, Why did you agree that the war with Spain was an unjust war of conquest? That war was very similar to the current war with Saddam: a war of liberation. It cannot be unjust to liberate people from a brutal, oppressive regime and give them liberty and justice.

If this new twist on the Spanish-American war is now being taught in schools, well it appears to be more of the same far left revision history that we have become so familiar with listening the Che and Propaganda, for example.

You are really unbelievable Ned. I hope for your sake you are just trolling. What about the Phillipine War in the later 1890's? Was that just? The murder of half a million people fighting US imperialism.

[Ned]

From Encarta: "A U.S. Navy study published in 1976 suggested that spontaneous combustion in the ship’s [Maine} coal bunkers caused the explosion."

Look at the date. 1976.

At the time, the nation was all but certain he Spanish blew up the Maine. The fact that this might have been an accident was not determined until eighty years later.

The proximate cause of the war though was the brutality of Spanish regime in Cuba. Liberation of Cuba, and the other Spanish colonies was the purpose for the war.

[Arrian]

Liberation of Cuba? Oh, please. A colony changed hands. We then made sure it was run by one of "our bastards" until Castro showed up and threw a wrench in the works.

By all accounts, Bautista, the guy he got rid of, was a nasty fellow. But US companies doing business in Cuba liked him.

-Arrian

[gunkulator]

Ned, I think you're alone on this one. Liberation as the cause of the Spanish American war???? Not likely. Remember this was the time of manifest destiny, white man's burden, social darwinism and other bigoted nasty beliefs.

Let's face it, the Spanish empire could barely hold itself together. America sees an oppurtunity to grab some free land and jumps at the first oppurtunity. Spain was very weak and America was a growing empire.

And before you bring it up, don't even bother telling us about the "liberation" of those Columbians unfortunate enough to live in the isthmus of Panama.

[Ned]

Our purpose for declaring war was limited to liberating Cuba and ending the brutal Spanish regime. The stories of atrocities and other suppression human rights by the Spanish regime daily filled American papers. The call for war came from the people of the United States.

When Congress declared war, it stated that our purposed was to liberate Cuba, not to take it away from the Spanish and annex it. That is what we did.

We never annexed Cuba, but left after a government was formed. We did intervene later to restore order. But we have been doing the same throughout the Carribean for 100 years.

At the close of the war, we purchased the Philippines and Puerto Rico from Spain. At the time we took possessoin of the Philippines, the people were in revolt against the Spanish. We chose to suppress the rebellion rather than giving the country to the rebels. That was probably a mistake. Puerto Rico is still part of the US -- but by choice.

But the parallels between the Spanish American War and the war in Iraq are great. We face the same problem. We went to war to free Cuba from Spain, but the new governments 'til this day have hardly been models of democracy. Contrast Cuba to the Philippines where democracy is well established. Perhaps we should have continued our occupation of Cuba long enough so that a true democracy might be established. I fear that we might leave Iraq too soon.

The declaration of war:

EXECUTIVE MANSION,
WASHINGTON April 25, 1899.

To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America:

I transmit to the Congress for its consideration and appropriate action, copies of correspondence recently had with the representative of Spain in the United States, with the United States minister at Madrid, and through the latter with the Government of Spain, showing the action taken under the joint resolution approved April 20, 1898, "for the recognition of the independence of the people of Cuba, demanding that the Government of Spain relinquish its authority and Government in the island of Cuba, and to withdraw its land and naval forces from Cuba and Cuban waters, and directing the President of the United States to use the land and naval forces of the United States to carry these resolutions into effect."

Upon communicating to the Spanish minister in Washington the demand which it became the duty of the Executive to address to the Government of Spain in obedience, to said resolution, the minister asked for his passports and withdrew. The United States minister at Madrid was in turn notified by the Spanish minister for foreign affairs that the withdrawal of the Spanish representative from the United States had terminated diplomatic relations between the two countries, and that all official communications between their respective representatives ceased therewith.

I commend to your especial attention the note addressed to the United States minister at Madrid by, the Spanish minister of foreign affairs on the 21st instant, whereby the foregoing notification was conveyed. It will be perceived therefrom that the Government of Spain, having cognizance of the joint resolution of the United States Congress, and in view of the things which the President is thereby required and authorized to do, responds by treating the reasonable demands of this Government as measures of hostility, following with that instant and complete severance of relations by its action which by the usage of nations accompanies an existent state of war between sovereign powers.

The position of Spain being thus made known, and the demands of the United States being denied, with a complete rupture of intercourse, by the act of Spain, I have been constrained, in the exercise of the power conferred upon me by the joint resolution aforesaid, to proclaim, under date of April 22, 1898, a blockade of certain ports of the north coast of Cuba, between Cardenas and Bahia Honda, and the port of Cienfugos, on the south coast of Cuba, and to issue my proclamation dated April 23, 1898, calling forth volunteers.

I now recommend the adoption of a joint resolution declaring that a state of war exists between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Spain, that the definition of the international status of the United States as a belligerent power may be made known and the assertion of all its rights in the conduct of a public war may be assured.

WILLIAM McKINLEY.


DECLARATION OF WAR WITH SPAIN

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, First. That war be, and the same is hereby, declared to exist, and that war has existed since the 21st day of April, A. D. 1898, including said day, between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Spain.

Second. That the President of the United States be, and he hereby is, directed and empowered to use the entire land and naval forces of the United States and to call into the actual service of the United States the militia of the several States to such extent as may be necessary to carry this act into effect.

Approved, April 25, 1898.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Ned

The call for war came from the people of the United States.

That is meaningless; the People can be convinced they are liberating so that they give permission to the government for a war which is actually for merely strategic reasons. It's the oldest trick in the book for leaders of democratic countries. A democratically elected leader can start his own wars as easily as a monarch can as long as he's good at PR.

[Ned]

Darius, but this war was in fact a popular war. Have you ever seen or even heard of he movie Citizen Kane. It is based on a real person, William Randolf Hearst. He, more than any other person, sensationalized Spanish crimes and called for war. This was not some manipulation by the president.