The Family Children of God by insidersChildren of God Family International
Home Chat Boards Articles COG History COG Publications People Resources Search site map > chatboards > genX > archives > post #8267

Re: And yet more History

Posted by Mike W. on April 06, 2003 at 20:04:05

In Reply to: And yet more History posted by Visitor on April 06, 2003 at 10:03:35:

You said: "Please abandon the conceit that "our" killings are always "war," while "their" killings are always terrorism." I don't think anyone said that we've always been right. However, just because we've been wrong in the past doesn't mean we are ALWAYS wrong, or that this particular war is wrong.
You said: "Jettison, too, its corollary, that "our" deaths are an affront to humanity, while "theirs" are simply unfortunate accidents." I don't recall anyone ever making this comment either. You're the only one I've heard this from.

You said: "These conceits distill American exceptionalism--the widespread belief that we are better than others, and that America is not subject to customary international rules.." This is your conclusion, but it's built upon a faulty assumption- that America claims to have not made mistakes. This is not something that America claims. America has shown a good track record of admitting mistakes, and of attempting to do better with civil rights, etc. Yor assumption is wrong.
You said: "--to its bitter, racist essence." How is America racist? Could you define how we are racist? I don't see this as true. Germany could be considered racist, as they attempted to annihilate the Jewish people and several other ethnic groups. Socialist could be considered racists, as Stalin and Lennin wiped out scores of people. The Islamic Jihad is racist and bigotted, as they find no worth in anyone who does not agree with them. Sadaam Hussein is a racist, as he has killed scores of Kurds simply because they are Kurds and don't like him. So, who's really the racists here? I think think your statement is unfounded.
You say: "For some recent book-length treatments of American exceptionalism, see Siobhan McEvoy-Levy, _American Exceptionalism and US Foreign Policy: Public Diplomacy at the End of the Cold War_, Palgrave Global Publishing, 2001; and Deborah L. Madsen, _American Exceptionalism_, University Press of Mississippi, 1998." I wouldn't waste my time buying such a book, as I'm a citizen of the USA, have lived here my whole life, and don't need any University or expert to tell me what I think, how I live, or what the temperature of "American Exceptionalism" is. I think any normal, thinking American knows that "American Exceptionalism" is a myth. Why waste hard earned money on a book that someone wrote to show off how smart they supposedly are? You may be swayed by 'smart people,' but the average American knows what is what. You almost sound as if you are not even a native American.

You said: "We are all God's children--Americans and Iraqis, Palestinians and Jews:" We are all created by God, but we are not all God's children. Evil ones are not of God. God does not expect us to cooperate with evil people. "being nice" to everyone is not one of God's principles."

You said: "Realize the limitless hypocrisy of the position: The one nation that has killed with nuclear weapons intends to devastate an already-impoverished country because it might, someday in the future, do something harmful." Yes, we did use nuclear weapons, and it stopped a war. Japan was RUTHLESS and CRUEL in the thousands, if not millions of people they killed. By dropping the bomb we stopped the war. You seem to forget that it was Japan who attacked us first. We put an end to their stupidity by dropping the bomb, and the USA owed no one an apology for doing it.

You said: "If the US may assault another nation because of what it might do in the future, so may every other country attack its potential enemies." Yes, we have a right to 'assault' them, although this is not an 'assault', but a liberation of the Iraqi people. Any nation, which is threatened by another, has the right to defend or to attack.

You said: "Bush says Saddam Hussein must be removed because he used poison gas on Iraqi Kurds in 1988. But Hussein was an American friend at the time, and he acquired much of his technology from us." So what? So what if Saddam did obtain technology from us at the time? That doesn't mean we said "Here, take this technology and gas the Kurds." So what if they were friends? Don't you have friend who do things that you don't approve of? Just because Saddam took technology and misused it does not mean WE were in the wrong. HE'S the one who gassed the Kurds, and not us. He's the one who is guilty. Just because a friend does something, does not mean it's right. Your logic escapes me.

You said: "Since Baghdad's deployment of chemical arms in war as well as peace was known at the time [1988], the question is: What did the US government do about it then? Nothing." I suppose you would have approved if we did something then. I think not. Are you saying we SHOULD have done something then? Maybe we should have, but haven't you ever heard of the saying 'Better late than never?' So, if you are assuming we should have done something, why are you against us doing something NOW? Again, your logic escapes me.
You said: "Worse, so strong was the hold of the pro-Iraq lobby on the Republican administration of President Ronald Reagan, it succeeded in getting the White House to frustrate the Senate's attempt to penalize Baghdad for violating the Geneva Protocol on Chemical Weapons, which it had signed." Perhaps this is true. I don't know. However, I'm familiar enough with politics to realize that there must have been some reason for Mr. Bush wishing to put this off or not do it.

You said: "Bush says Hussein must go because he invaded Kuwait. But then-U.S. ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie met with Hussein eight days before the invasion and reportedly told Iraq we would not interfere. A transcript of that meeting later surfaced and was published in the New York Times." Again, I say 'So what?' Perhaps we didn't think they would really invade, or perhaps Kuwait also did not wish for us to interfere at the time. Are you against the fact that we freed Kuwait from Saddam? The Kuwaitis seem to be happy that we freed them at the time. Otherwise they would not be allowing us to be there right now. I see no logic in you objecting to us freeing Kuwait, when Kuwait itself welcomes us. Or perhaps you feel that Mr. Hussein had the right to invade Kuwait? I'm curious as to what your objection is here? Is it the statement by April Glaspie that you are upset about? Are you upset that we told we wouldn't interfere, and then did?