SPQR
You and I travel different paths, but my view both sides share most views is still true.
The very left, lost forever, are in bigger numbers on the net, because it is the only place that can happen.
A sprookers corner would hear only the foot fall of passing people.
We should not take the baits, no words we find will be heard, no truths.
I put this thread as evidence, Iraq did not welcome the west? we stole their oil? on what true evidence.
Saddam did not poison thousands.
To feed such is to grant a one sided view the west is evil the east victims.
I retreat, I like two sided debate, but fixed minds rabbiting on ? no thanks, have fun.
PS watched us play Iraq this morning, no one holding a gun or whip at their heads!

Sadly, as Bell says, it is all too true, the left is lost. Whilst a critically important subject it is beyond the scope of this thread.

And yet, we find SPQR soliciting the aid of modern left wing post-modern/relativist thinking and declaring civility a "social construct". Imagine! And as if this patent obscuratanism was not contemptuous enough we then must endure examples of Muslim hand shaking and veils! The relevance of which is beyond contemplation.

Whatever will they think of next? "loud voices" raised by guards at detainees! Yes, it is these incidents that the US Military wishes to censor from any detainee (political prisoner) trial because these are matters of national security.

The idiocy of torture is not only its depravity, it is its sheer uselessness. On the other hand, if prisoners were treated decently, the US could simply release CCTV footage of their confessions, acquiring not only easy convictions but public confidence - doh

Reading over the previous posts, I came across SPQRs perverse reference that the strife in the middle east is not caused by the US super power but "soft power" - that committees of human rights were somehow to blame for who knows what.

Well, explain the relevance of this soft power to a family in Iraq who has bombs poring down on them. Or a drone strike which accidentally levels a building onto a child, a brother, a sister.

Never mind, the latte sipping intellectuals are busy campaigning against boorishness whilst the mainstream media makes the rest of us compliant.

Hi YEBIGA,

Just a few points in closing.

<<SPQRs perverse reference that the strife in the middle east is not caused by the US super power but "soft power" - that committees of human rights were somehow to blame for who knows what.>>
1) At no stage did I say the Human Rights bandwagion was responsible for the strife in the ME. Rather it is responsible for allowing that strife to infiltrate into OZ. And it is largely responsible for tying our hands when it comes to addressing it here in OZ.
2) The strife in the ME has little to do with the US. Despite the strange propensity of people like you to want the USA to play the role of world policeman (note you comment about its “stewardship”) and then in the next breath accuse it of being meddlesome. The strife in the ME (and elsewhere) has much, much more to do with a totalitarian ideology that rules most of the ME, Islam.

<< On the other hand, if prisoners were treated decently, the US could simply release CCTV footage of their confessions, acquiring not only easy convictions but public confidence – doh>>
It is doubtful that any amount evidence would convince you. Because you, and those you listen to, are primed to find fault.

As your last two efforts have been little better than a two year olds tantrum. We’ll leave it there till you have matured a little more an can understand some of the concepts.

Hi Belly,

You were spot-on.
Cheers

Spqr
Like the policies you defend, you choose to attack the man and not deal with the subject.
In this at least you are consistent.

If you but accepted some criticism of the USA your position would hold some persuasiveness but as it is you render a unthinking devotion to your masters. Why?
Civilization has existed without the US hegemony. Infact in historical terms, the US is a mere upstart. I could accept a defense that argued that the US is a mere rooky at this super power status and that subsequently it has only temporarily become intoxicated with its sudden power. I could half accept such an argument promising with time and experience we will see some maturity.

But this simple good v evil narrative augurs poorly for the hoped for maturity.

Please stop having tizzy fits about not responding to me time after time. I could only be so lucky

Belly,

The US certainly pulled its punches with Saddam when he was merrily gassing the Iranians during that war. They hardly murmured knowing full-well he was doing it...but at the time he was an ally, so they took no actions and continued to support Iraq's war effort against the Iranians.

The US gained unfettered access to Iraq's oil by means of the invasion. It's not a matter of stealing oil, but by refashioning the machinations from the ground up. When you gain control, even under the guise of delivering democracy, you gain influence.

Please don't tell me that the "whole" showdown was altruistic. How can killing many many thousands, destabilising and debilitating an entire country be altruistic.

If the yanks were so interested in stopping megalomaniac dictators, they would have been into Zimbabwe like a shot - no oil.