The "Do Nothing" Crowd

[zipman]

I am continually amused by the "Do Nothing Crowd" and their claim to the moral high-ground by virtue of inaction.

You may be asking yourself, who is the "Do Nothing Crowd?"

They are the ones who cry "war is wrong" and ignore the countless deaths that occur under dictators. They are the ones who cry "there were other options" but are unable to provide a single one when asked. have no suggestions when asked.

They think that as long as they do nothing, they can wag that finger of blame at anyone who does. That hundreds of thousands of children and elderly have died under Saddam Hussein doesn't matter. That fewer civilians will likely die this year in Iraq with the war casualties as opposed to the number that would have died under Saddam doesn't matter, because "war is wrong."

Sitting on your ass and doing nothing is not the moral high-ground, and despite all the cute quotes posted on these boards, military force is required sometimes to make things better. It's a sad fact that no amount of idealism or naivete will change.

So wag your finger, chant your slogans and protest, protest, protest, all to keep the status quo.

 

[Bidin~Time]

Well said.

 

[Killswitch]

I get to "Do Nothing" today because we have four inches of snow!, and I got the day off!

Yay!

 

[Lancecastor]

An interesting thread.

When it comes to Iraq, the USA has certainly "done something".

The USA supported Saddam from his taking power and all through the 1980's, funding the slaughter of an entire genration of Iranians, Kurds and Iraqi Shiites.

Now they are "doing something" in hunting him down once his "services" in destabilizing Iran aren't required....much like OBL became redundant after he was paid for running the Russians out of Afghanistan.

Contrast.... those who have stood by the principles of multilateral, non violent change in Iraq via the UN.

Note that it was Woodrow Wilson who pioneered the concept of international law and multilateralism...a principle the US and many other nations defended staunchly throughout the twentieth century.

Now the USA has "done something" new for the 21st Century....announced that it will use pre-emptive military force to further its view of the way people in the dozens of countries it occupies live their lives.

I'm in favour of multilateralism and non-violence in the conduct of diplomacy...and though that's not as exciting to people with militaristic interventionist leanings such as yourself...it is indeed "something".

It's just not as bloody or as exciting to see on tv.

 

[zipman]

An interesting thread.

When it comes to Iraq, the USA has certainly "done something".

The USA supported Saddam from his taking power and all through the 1980's, funding the slaughter of an entire genration of Iranians, Kurds and Iraqi Shiites.

Now they are "doing something" in hunting him down once his "services" in destabilizing Iran aren't required....much like OBL became redundant after he was paid for running the Russians out of Afghanistan.

Contrast.... those who have stood by the principles of multilateral, non violent change in Iraq via the UN.

Note that it was Woodrow Wilson who pioneered the concept of international law and multilateralism...a principle the US and many other nations defended staunchly throughout the twentieth century.

Now the USA has "done something" new for the 21st Century....announced that it will use pre-emptive military force to further its view of the way people in the dozens of countries it occupies live their lives.

I'm in favour of multilateralism and non-violence in the conduct of diplomacy...and though that's not as exciting to people with militaristic interventionist leanings such as yourself...it is indeed "something".

It's just not as bloody or as exciting to see on tv.

The U.S. did put Saddam in power and obviously, that was a mistake. Personally, I prefer correcting a mistake than continuing to allow it to exist.

You make a valid point about our "not needing Saddam or OSL." It is very similar to the way the rest of the world loved American strength and leadership during the cold war. As long as we spent billions of dollars on defense so other countries could focus on free health care and the threat of the USSR was kept at bay, everyone loved us. Once the USSR fell, then all of sudden there the very things that everyone loved us are now bad.

The U.S. does not want to tell people how to live their lives, we merely want to prevent them from pursuing a course of action that presents a danger to this country. Allowing Saddam Hussein to continue to have WMD is a threat to the US.

The principles of multilateralism and non-violent change are indeed worhtwhile, if not idealistic. Please list the success of the U.N., Canada, or any other country in affecting change in Iraq over the last 12 years. I'll save you the time, there isn't any. Not one. Multilateralism and non-violent change are a wonderful starting point, and I fully support them, up to a point. Believing they will suddenly work after 12 years is beyond naive or idealistic, it is irresponsible.

I have hundreds of channels of cable, I do not support the war to "have something exciting to watch on t.v." Of course, I don't how good Canadian cable is so this may be a plus up there.

So what has Canada (or any other country) doing with regard to N. Korea? Nothing. It's a U.S. problem up until we do something and then we have the joy of having the "do nothing crowd" criticize us.

Either step up or shut up. You want Multilateralism, then you have to push for it and then back it up. Sitting on your ass and waiting for the U.N. to do something is not dipomacy, it's apathy.

 

[Prince Romeo]

The U.S. did put Saddam in power and obviously, that was a mistake. Personally, I prefer correcting a mistake than continuing to allow it to exist.

You make a valid point about our "not needing Saddam or OSL." It is very similar to the way the rest of the world loved American strength and leadership during the cold war. As long as we spent billions of dollars on defense so other countries could focus on free health care and the threat of the USSR was kept at bay, everyone loved us. Once the USSR fell, then all of sudden there the very things that everyone loved us are now bad.

The U.S. does not want to tell people how to live their lives, we merely want to prevent them from pursuing a course of action that presents a danger to this country. Allowing Saddam Hussein to continue to have WMD is a threat to the US.

The principles of multilateralism and non-violent change are indeed worhtwhile, if not idealistic. Please list the success of the U.N., Canada, or any other country in affecting change in Iraq over the last 12 years. I'll save you the time, there isn't any. Not one. Multilateralism and non-violent change are a wonderful starting point, and I fully support them, up to a point. Believing they will suddenly work after 12 years is beyond naive or idealistic, it is irresponsible.

I have hundreds of channels of cable, I do not support the war to "have something exciting to watch on t.v." Of course, I don't how good Canadian cable is so this may be a plus up there.

So what has Canada (or any other country) doing with regard to N. Korea? Nothing. It's a U.S. problem up until we do something and then we have the joy of having the "do nothing crowd" criticize us.

Either step up or shut up. You want Multilateralism, then you have to push for it and then back it up. Sitting on your ass and waiting for the U.N. to do something is not dipomacy, it's apathy.

Well spoken zipman. When is enough enough? There comes a time when you have to stand up for what you believe in. This isn't about politics. It is about each and everyone one in the world and what they choose to accept or believe in. I believe that democratic countries are the closest societies to being free, that you can have. I am willing to fight for that freedom and the right for my ancestors to enjoy that freedom. I will fight against anyone that threatens it. What beliefs do you have that you are willing to stand up for? The belief that you can speak your mind freely? How is it that you have that right and what would you do to defend it?

Do I smell Canadian bacon on the griddle this morning? Cuz someone just got their ass fried.

 

[Lancecastor]

The U.S. did put Saddam in power and obviously, that was a mistake. Personally, I prefer correcting a mistake than continuing to allow it to exist.

You make a valid point about our "not needing Saddam or OSL." It is very similar to the way the rest of the world loved American strength and leadership during the cold war. As long as we spent billions of dollars on defense so other countries could focus on free health care and the threat of the USSR was kept at bay, everyone loved us. Once the USSR fell, then all of sudden there the very things that everyone loved us are now bad.

The U.S. does not want to tell people how to live their lives, we merely want to prevent them from pursuing a course of action that presents a danger to this country. Allowing Saddam Hussein to continue to have WMD is a threat to the US.

The principles of multilateralism and non-violent change are indeed worhtwhile, if not idealistic. Please list the success of the U.N., Canada, or any other country in affecting change in Iraq over the last 12 years. I'll save you the time, there isn't any. Not one. Multilateralism and non-violent change are a wonderful starting point, and I fully support them, up to a point. Believing they will suddenly work after 12 years is beyond naive or idealistic, it is irresponsible.

I have hundreds of channels of cable, I do not support the war to "have something exciting to watch on t.v." Of course, I don't how good Canadian cable is so this may be a plus up there.

So what has Canada (or any other country) doing with regard to N. Korea? Nothing. It's a U.S. problem up until we do something and then we have the joy of having the "do nothing crowd" criticize us.

Either step up or shut up. You want Multilateralism, then you have to push for it and then back it up. Sitting on your ass and waiting for the U.N. to do something is not dipomacy, it's apathy.

Well, it's good to see you agree that the Republican way of funding despots to achieve tactical gains in non-US aligned countries (pioneered by Nixon) then killing them when their short term geopolitical positions are either passe or the US population discovers the truth....is the wrong way to go.

As for Iraq and multilateralism, Canada has a 40 year record of achievement in Peacekeeping to restabilize torn countries...from Cyprus to Afghanistan. Canada is known internationally for inventing the Peacekeeping process and in contributing the highest percentage of its GDP to foreign aid for mannny years, something of which we are (understandably) proud.

Aside from contributing alongside the USA recently in Kosovo, Afghanistan and at present in the Persian Gulf with 1 destroyer and 2 frigates keeping your aircraft carriers safe from attack by small suicide boats, I'm not sure what else you'd have us do....?

You're right that in a new era where there is no 1 big Bad Evil Guy in the world that US aggression becomes more obvious....thereby making the USA the Evil Empire by virtue of its continuing military presence in Japan, Korea, Guam, Germany, Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, the Med, the Persian Gulf...patrolling the world.

North Korea? The USA, after cutting off Clinton's deal to get them food in return for decommissioning weapons, have found that the only bargaining chip they have against an increasingly militaristic Republican USA ...is to start building weapons again. The breach by the USA of it's relationship with NK is conveniently passed over in the US media though. Clinton himself has said it several times on US tv....

NK is just another set-up in the making...obviously you've already taken the bait Ari Fleischer & Wolfowitz have trolled in front of you.

Maybe you ought to get Canadian cable and get better informed.

 

[patient1]

I won't defend the pre-emption policy.

Neither will I defend the UN approved sanctions, which hurt the weak & innocent first & most. 100,000 to as many as 300,000 Iraqii deaths per year have been atributed to those sanctions. Even if the actual figures are only average 1000 deaths per week, civillians are safer under the war.

The UN bureaucracy administrates a lot of money under the oil for food program, but for all of the acclaim it has as a relief agency, the people have been worse off, not better.

The neighboring nations that advocated continuation of the sanctions/inspections status quo have profited nicely from smuggling, too.


Noriega, Osama, & Saddam were vermin which we nourished into monsters, no question. I think of the resulting military actions as follow-up.

 

[Lancecastor]

Noriega, Osama, & Saddam were vermin which we nourished into monsters, no question. I think of the resulting military actions as follow-up.

Well hopefully the next generation of voting Americans will take a less convenient view of the world and start electing people who don't create despots that require "follow up".

 

[Prince Romeo]

Well hopefully the next generation of voting Americans will take a less convenient view of the world and start electing people who don't create despots that require "follow up".

"A young Jedi named Darth Castor, who was a pupil of mine until he turned to evil, helped the Empire hunt down and destroy the Jedi knights. He betrayed and murdered your father."

 

[Purple Haze]

Excuse me zipman7, but I believe you got the war you wanted. I don't really understand why you're still going on about it. Us "Do Nothing" people were ignored by this administration, you "Do Anything Bush Wants" people got your wish. Why are you still bitching?

 

[weed]

There are more options than all or nothing.

And there are people who believe that the process of inspections had not yet become futile. I am one of them. And with no imminent threat it should have been given a chance. I'll even grant that I think it's chances of success had been heightened by the threat of military action gathering at Iraq's perimeters but I don't think the time to make the threat a war had come.

Too late now.

 

[busybody..]

So after 12 years the inspections had not run its course? How long till it did run its course?

No imminent threat? You dont know that, do you? Will you have been willing to wait for an attack before you acted?

If the Pres., said there was an imminent threat would you have believed that?

What imminent threat did the Queda folks present prior to 9/11?

 

[celiaKitten]

There are certainly more options than all or nothing.

To charactarize those who didn't agree with the idea of a pre-emptive strike, against a nation that didn't pose the greatest threat to our borders, when we hadn't really finished what we began in Afghanistan, that didn't think that this end justified the means to get to war ... that's not *doing nothing.* That's thinking about something from a different angle than you do - that's having an opinion that is contrary to yours.

However, that does not mean that those who took a stance against this war are *do nothings*, wagging our fingers, anymore than you are a warmongerer for being in support of it.

You can't put people into those kinds of nice, tidy groups because they don't fit.

 

[breakwall]

So after 12 years the inspections had not run its course? How long till it did run its course?

No imminent threat? You dont know that, do you? Will you have been willing to wait for an attack before you acted?

If the Pres., said there was an imminent threat would you have believed that?

What imminent threat did the Queda folks present prior to 9/11?

Busybody, this is more of an intellectual argument. You are over your head here.


Go back to chanting "USA USA USA" on your own threads.

 

[weed]

So after 12 years the inspections had not run its course? How long till it did run its course?

Til this inspection team said they were done and their findings assessed.

No imminent threat? You dont know that, do you? Will you have been willing to wait for an attack before you acted?

If the Pres., said there was an imminent threat would you have believed that?

Would have to depend on the information presented. I wouldn't even feel I have to be told in advance but there was no threat in this case.

What imminent threat did the Queda folks present prior to 9/11?

There were signs.

 

[zipman]

You're right that in a new era where there is no 1 big Bad Evil Guy in the world that US aggression becomes more obvious....thereby making the USA the Evil Empire by virtue of its continuing military presence in Japan, Korea, Guam, Germany, Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, the Med, the Persian Gulf...patrolling the world.

Cute response, but not what I said. Since you're obviously intelligent, that makes these types of respsonses simply disingenuous, but no matter.

North Korea? The USA, after cutting off Clinton's deal to get them food in return for decommissioning weapons, have found that the only bargaining chip they have against an increasingly militaristic Republican USA ...is to start building weapons again. The breach by the USA of it's relationship with NK is conveniently passed over in the US media though. Clinton himself has said it several times on US tv....

NK is just another set-up in the making...obviously you've already taken the bait Ari Fleischer & Wolfowitz have trolled in front of you.

Maybe you ought to get Canadian cable and get better informed.

I'm sorry, please explain to me again how N. Korea renegging on the Nuclear nonproliferation treaty is our fault. I get my news from all over the world, not just tv. Newspapers.com has an amazing selection, so the attempts to classify me as a "lemming" of US propoganda are ridiculous at best.

I am waiting for the international community to do something about N. Korea. So far, they haven't but hopefully they soon will. Considering that millions are starving there so that N. Korea can spend money to develop nuclear weapons is a problem, not just for them, but for the rest of the world. However, I would welcome U.N. action to resolve the issue. Of course, I also won't hold my breath.

Personally, I favor letting S. Korea, China, Japan and Russia to lead the charge. I have supported withdrawing US troops from S. Korea for years.

 

[Ishmael]

As usual, the anti-american "do nothings" have degenerated the thread into finger pointing and blame with not one single idea or suggestion. They live in the past and thrive on their self-righteous hatred.

Pretty much the sick fucks you pegged them as.

Ishmael

 

[zipman]

Excuse me zipman7, but I believe you got the war you wanted. I don't really understand why you're still going on about it. Us "Do Nothing" people were ignored by this administration, you "Do Anything Bush Wants" people got your wish. Why are you still bitching?

Hey PH,

I'm not bitching, just trying to discuss an issue. I am by no means a war hawk who believes war solves everything, nor am I a blind supporter of Bush. I believed that in this instance, war was the only answer left.

The purpose of this thread was to discuss the fact that sometimes, action is required. I educate myself before I take a stand on an issue, and even then, I continue to read and seek information to either validate my opinion or to change my mind.

I think that the UN failed miserably in Iraq, and I would like to see them become a more forceful institution, one capable of doing more than just coming up with resolutions, but also having the fortitude to enforce them.

Inaction can be worse than war, just look at Rwanda. Have we learned nothing from that shameful chapter in world history?

I am not happy about this war, or the casualties, whether Iraqi or coalition, whether civilian or military. But I do believe it was the right thing to do. I would like to raise awareness of the problems that caused this, instead of the usual US world domination or oil conspiracy threads.

 

[breakwall]

Cute response, but not what I said. Since you're obviously intelligent, that makes these types of respsonses simply disingenuous, but no matter.


I'm sorry, please explain to me again how N. Korea renegging on the Nuclear nonproliferation treaty is our fault. I get my news from all over the world, not just tv. Newspapers.com has an amazing selection, so the attempts to classify me as a "lemming" of US propoganda are ridiculous at best.

I am waiting for the international community to do something about N. Korea. So far, they haven't but hopefully they soon will. Considering that millions are starving there so that N. Korea can spend money to develop nuclear weapons is a problem, not just for them, but for the rest of the world. However, I would welcome U.N. action to resolve the issue. Of course, I also won't hold my breath.

Personally, I favor letting S. Korea, China, Japan and Russia to lead the charge. I have supported withdrawing US troops from S. Korea for years.

I find it interesting that Korea has specifically tageted the US for recognition. They have continually attacked the US on every political and diplomatic level at their disposal. Other than backhanded references to South Korea and Japan, no other nation has been the focus on North Korea's actions.

And all of a sudden, this is the ONE issue that the US wants the rest of the world to handle?

Personally, this sounds more like a pissing match than a global issue. I understand that there are nuclear weapons involved, but that doesn't make it a global issue. If you don't believe me, please turn in your notebooks to India v. Pakistan re: nuclear proliferation. You will see that although this has garnered the world's attention, it hasn't garnered the world's intervention.

 

[busybody..]

: Marines 'liberate' Iraqi village
It started with the kids. Somehow it always does - curiosity elbowing aside shyness of strangers and parents' admonitions for caution.

"Ameericaah?" a little girl asked a Marine who had entered her village and taken a defensive position as others began to search homes. The streets were deserted. People peered around their gates.

Later a Marine spoke to the crowd and asked the name of the local party official. People looked sheepish and did not give it.

"I know you think Saddam Hussein may not be finished, but I'm telling you he is," said the soldier, who requested anonymity. "I know you are afraid. Look at the soldiers behind me. We've all come to rid you of Saddam. You don't need to be afraid any more."

The crowd of about 100 people immediately broke into applause. It was obvious they had learned in the past to cheer anything any official said.

UPI

 

[zipman]

There are more options than all or nothing.

And there are people who believe that the process of inspections had not yet become futile. I am one of them. And with no imminent threat it should have been given a chance. I'll even grant that I think it's chances of success had been heightened by the threat of military action gathering at Iraq's perimeters but I don't think the time to make the threat a war had come.

Too late now.

Iraq didn't let the inspectors in until the threat of force was at their door. They were complying enough to stave off war but not enough to truly verify that they did indeed disarm.

Weapons inspectors were supposed to act as auditors, not as investigators. As auditors, they were supposed to verify the destruction of the WMD that Iraq had. There is no way for them to be successful as investigators. Therefore, more time wouldn't have mattered.

It is too late for Iraq, but the question of the role of the UN, the cost of inaction, and how to truly enforce UN resolutions remains valid.

 

[Azwed]

As usual, the anti-world "Ishmael" have degenerated the thread into finger pointing and blame with not one single idea or suggestion. He lives in the past and thrives on their self-righteous hatred.

Pretty much the sick fuck you pegged them as.

Ishmael

 

[Lancecastor]

I'm sorry, please explain to me again how N. Korea renegging on the Nuclear nonproliferation treaty is our fault.

When Bush took office, then later declared NK part of the Axis of Evil, he had already cancelled the Clinton deal.....which of course was seen by NK as a breach. NK then recommenced their weapons programs because bombs are their major export with which they buy food...they have no self-sustaining ability to feed themselves in NK.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Clinton relaxes U.S. sanctions against North Korea

North Korea's isolation has devastated its agrarian economy
September 18, 1999
Web posted at: 10:35 a.m. HKT (0235 GMT)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. President Bill Clinton eased strict economic sanctions against North Korea on Friday following Pyongyang's agreement to refrain from further ballistic missile testing.

It is the most significant U.S. gesture toward the communist government since the end of the Korean War in 1953. But analysts said it would bring only limited economic benefits to the impoverished country and its people.

U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said the arrangement with North Korea starts the two countries "down a new and more hopeful road. It is a road that holds out the possibility of long-term stability and even eventual reconciliation on the Korean peninsula."

Albright cautioned, however, "If circumstances require that we go down a different road altogether, we will do so to defend our interests."

The move will allow "most consumer goods to be available for export to North Korea and will allow the importation of most North Korean-origin goods into the United States," White House press secretary Joe Lockhart said.

http://www.cnn.com/ASIANOW/east/9909/17/n.korea.02/

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Clinton's recent thoughts about NK on Larry King:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Give North Korea food: Clinton

The answer to the North Korean nuclear standoff is for an East Asian coalition to offer Pyongyang food, energy and the technology to grow food in exchange for an end to its nuclear programs, former US president Bill Clinton has said.

"North Korea is a poor country. They can't grow their own food. It's the most isolated society in the world. Their only cash crops are bombs and missiles," Clinton said on CNN's Larry King Live program.

"They know they can't use them, except to sell them because they need money," he said. "Nobody in the region wants them to have these weapons. The only reason they had weapons was either to sell them or to be paid not to sell them."

http://onenews.nzoom.com/onenews_detail/0,1227,166790-1-9,00.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


I think Clinton's suggestion of a multilateral approach to NK still makes sense.

Note: NK wasn't sabre rattling until Bush named the country as terrorists and put the trade sanctions back in place...so yes, the USA has started this crisis with NK.

And it could have been avoided...possibly still can. Except you likely have the wrong people in Washington.


The guys you have prefer killing to talking, bombs to trade deals.

 

[zipman]

There are certainly more options than all or nothing.

To charactarize those who didn't agree with the idea of a pre-emptive strike, against a nation that didn't pose the greatest threat to our borders, when we hadn't really finished what we began in Afghanistan, that didn't think that this end justified the means to get to war ... that's not *doing nothing.* That's thinking about something from a different angle than you do - that's having an opinion that is contrary to yours.

However, that does not mean that those who took a stance against this war are *do nothings*, wagging our fingers, anymore than you are a warmongerer for being in support of it.

You can't put people into those kinds of nice, tidy groups because they don't fit.

Good post Celia,

You raise valid points, and I agree with everything you said, except about waiting for us to be finished in afghanistan, as that will take years.

Sometimes, you need a controversial first post to get people talking! I don't believe that everyone against the war is a do nothing any more than everyone who does support it is a war monger. However, there are those who against war in any circumstance, and I find the moral condemnation of those people who say no to war but have no feasible alternative to be even worse than those who support war.