Carve up the middle East !!!

I realy don't see your point...Those are the standards that the popular government are advocating. I don't agree with them, but I don't have to to support their right to have them. It's their country...that's the point. We have many restricitons in our country which other countries may not agree with, but they are implemented by the government of our choice, and that's our right. We have had, in the recent past, very questionable restictions based on race, sex, creed, and persuasion that other countries condemned. And they were right to, but we had the right to resolve them for ourselves, without foreign powers invading us to implement their views on us...And, once again, the arrogance to assume that we are the other "side", and have the right to make them sample us...They have already chosen. We may not like their choice, but we don't have any right to change it for them...

 

VietNam was only a cold war objective because we ( incorrectly) concluded it was one. You can't justify your choice by saying that you chose it...And the dispute in Bosnia was about whether or not there were 2 countries or one...we chose a side in that conflict...If one of the sides on Rwanda ( which they did, if I'm not mistaken-not sure about this..) claimed independance, would we have then rushed in to take sides?

 

What you call cultural relativism, I call democracy.It's not up to us to weigh the relatives good and bad of our own actions, agree with ourselves, and therefore conclude that that gives us the right to invade and impose our will. Might does not equal right. And, while we're on the subject, does that mean that ANY country who makes more right decisions than wrong ones, or concludes it does, has the right to invade less powerful nations? If so, do you know the track records of Kuwait and Iraq, for example? Or , say, France and Belgium? If France is right more often than Belgium ( or thinks it is) and is more powerful, does it have the right to invade Belgium and impose it's will? Isn't this Medievel logic?

 

Uh, yes, he was out under arrest merely for voicing his views in combination with his being very popular..What else did he do to cause " internal dissension"?

No, I'm not ignoring the fact that the government allowed us to stay. Laden's point was that they were responding to the pressure of a more powerful nation, contrary to the will of their own people...The fact that they continued to do so is merely an extension of his point...And I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about what is the cause for his terrorism...To me it seems obvious that if condition A invoked his public outcry, and no terrorism, and condition B invoked terrorism, then condition B is his reason for the terrorism. Obviously you disagree...

 

JAG:

Just wanted to let you know I agree with most of what you're saying, but don't really have the energy to argue anymore.

 

Ok I originally responded to this thread due to the idiotic statements by DaKota and Bingo. Dakota showed his true feelings in his initial thread and Bingo showed his true innerside with what he said. Like I said earlier I lost total respect for both of these posters. What happened yesterday was unacceptable and the responsible parties should be punished. Whether that be Bin Laden's group, an entire country or a domestic terrorist such as McVeigh. I have not seen one person saying we got what we deserved, however some people have jumped to that conclusion because they have not kept up with world history. What F.D. Khan, Achebe, Shanna, and JAG are saying is that this was bound to happen(they are not saying it should have happened) due to our countries actions in the Mid-East. If you follow up on world history the U.S. helped Israel create their country at the expense of the Palestinians, Syria, and Lebanon. Israel with the help of the U.S. grew to a very powerfull force on Palestines land. Now lets fast-forward a little to Yitzhak Rabin probably the best Israeli leader we will ever see. He was ready to give Palestine a great chunk of land back and was very sympathetical to the Palestinian people. As a result he angered the right wing Israeli's and was assasinated by an Israeli Jew. After Rabin's death Israel became very cold with Palestine feeding them empty promises which they never kept. At the same time we were funding Israel with military contracts and selling them our technology and training their millitary. Anyhow the Palestinian people basically have been locked in refugee camps in their own home land and the U.S. has really done nothing to solve the problem and has thrown salt into the Palestinian peoples wounds by backing Israel up with weapons and millitary contracts.

This is the reason for the anti-U.S. attitude in some Muslim countries. No one is saying that yesterdays actions are justified by these reasons but that we should look to change our foreign policies big time so that something like this never happens again. Out of all the countries in the mid-east only the Iraqi government is a thorn in our side and I seriously doubt Iraq was behind this. If anything this was orchestrated completely by Osama Bin Laden. Afghanistan has no true government as of right now as they are in a civil war with the Taliban controlling about 90% and the remaining 10% ruled by the previous government. The Taliban have set up no political foundation and I doubt they are smart enough to ever do so. If the U.S. is going to go to war I bet they would strategically eradicate the Taliban wether that be giving aide to the northern oposition or strategic air strikes or by a troop rollout(very unlikely). I think the U.S. will find Bin Laden within the next 2-3 years with the aide of the rest of the middle eastern countries and help Afghanistan to oust the Taliban.

Hopefully the U.S. will get smart and back away from Israel a little and help give Palestinians back some of their freedom and land which I feel will end all of this terrosist bull****.

 

JAG,

I think most of the problem here comes from your false assumption that the people in every country in the world has chosen their own government. Would it surprise you to find out that the people of Iraq, many of whom are starving while Saddam and his troops live high on the hog, would rather not live under his military dictatorship. Would you be surprised that most non-Muslims and women would rather not live under the theocracy controlling Afghanistan. Do you really think that the majority of Russians supported Stalin. When a military dictatorship is in place, and people like DaDakota suggest that we should tear down the current government and rebuild, that is not tyranny. That is much more analogous to the French helping us to kick out the English than the English themselves. NO ONE has suggested that we rule the countries in the ME from afar. I only think that we should allow the people the freedom to rule themselves. I am not saying we should institute our ideas of what is right, only that we should allow for the citizens of the countries to determine for themselves instead of being told by the state controlled media.

For everyone that points to our support of Israel as a motive,

Perhaps you haven't heard, but we also give support to Muslim controlled countries in the ME. Egypt is slightly behind Israel in aid money and we have given aid to Iran, Iraq, Qatar, Kuwait, Afghanistan, etc. as well. I for one do not care why they did this. Some have said we should look at their motives to avoid this happening in the future. The only way knowing their motives would prevent this from happening would be if we changed our policy, and that would just be letting the terrorists win. Even then, a whole new group of terrorists would come along that does not like US policies and would see that terrorism is the way to get the US to change. If the terrorist want us to cut support to Israel, (I believe this is what OBL asked for) then my response would be to increase funding to Israel and cut funding to everyone else. Also, since the Palestinians are not pleased with our efforts to bring peace and get concessions from Israel, we should just tell Israel, "Do whatever you want, we will keep sending you the money just the same." Desparate times call for desparate measures.

 

I completely disagree with your solution/attitude towards resolution in the Middle East...I'll get into it more in a bit...( gotta run for now) but I'll quickly summarize..

A) By determining to never examine our own foreign policy when a terrorist questions it, you are giving that terrorist as much power as if you were to automatically accede to his demands...Our foreign policy should be determined by what is right and what is possible, not a knee-jerk elementary school-level rejection. It's like a teenager who decides to be independant and show his/her parents who's boss by doing everything the opposite of what his/her parents want. The kid doesn't see that the parents are still determining his/her behaviour, just negatively. Our foreign policy should be subkect to review as we see fit, based on moral and political principles, not based on an automatic rejection of another party...

B) So we help to create a terrible situation, screw the Palestinians out of their incestral lands,fund their enemies, and when they get angry we get fed up, wash our hands with them, and say " Screw you!" again?!!? And this is right because....? I'm not in favour of abandoning Israel. They are a reality, and deserve the right to exist. But to suggest that we have been patient with these damn Palestinians, but now we've had enough is ignorant and conveniently short of memory...

 

Imagine that the U.S. were less powerful than, say, China...would you concede their right to invade us and change our government if THEY THOUGHT it was wrong? When you assume that American standard is THE standard of correct behaviour, you are making the same step as someone like Pol Pot made...my might makes my standard of right and wrong right...When you ask why we should be reluctant to impose our views if we think they're better, read the words of our founding fathers about why they were rebelling against Britain...That the views of a nation should reflect the views of IT'S PEOPLE, NOT THOSE OF SOME FOREIGN POWER. Your comparison of rapists, etc. once again assumes that the American view is the correct one, the normal one, and that those who differ are in the wrong...What if other countries think we're the rapists?

Jag,

I understand your perspective, however there are many paradoxes within this form of logic/belief system. In regards to the particulars of world history hayesstreet and yourself are more knowledgeable than myself. But your 'relativist' perspective has tainted your ability to place these matters within a single construct. I will hopefully address what I believe to be the core matter. First, from the cultural relativist perspective one should be reluctant to impose their values onto another human/state. Secondly, your assumption that a 'judgment', and concurring action from a postion of power, implies that 'might makes right.'
I know that hayesstreet does not think that might makes right, in fact he has indicated throughout that power is in truth.

Regarding the reluctance of imposing ones' values on another. I start from the position that in the very identification of beliefs and belief systems we must presuppose shared standards of truth and of inference,and that we must further presuppose a commonly shared core of beliefs whose content and meaning is fixed by the application of standards. Namely, terrorism or rape is wrong.

In other words, the basic strategy must be to assume that by and large a poster we do not yet understand is consistent and correct in his beliefs according to our own standrads, of course. Following this strategy makes it possible to pair up sentences the poster utters with sentences of our own that we hold true under like circumstances. This is a method of translation. Only then can be a basis for error be found. Simply, there has to be a bridgehead if there is communication. If the argument for a bridgehead is valid, then cultural relativism is not merely incoherent it is self-subverting. For without such a common core, the entire enterprise of interpretation and translation cannot get started: the meaning of 'right' cannot be identified and so questions about relativity or otherwise of their truth values or rationality cannot even be raised.

Secondly, If you and hayestreet were merely expressing your relativist perspective, rather than quareling about which is right, it would be odd to say that you 'disagreed', and it is hard to see how you could quarrel or disagree over something without being united by substantial agreement on other matters.

Given these two presuppositions there is some standard of truth. How do we discern this truth? Jag seems to big a big supporter of democracy and they define truth by what the magority believes. But this raises its own series of questions, Is slavery right if the magority of Southern states say it is? Or is Abraham Lincoln a tyrannical fascist who thinks might makes right. Lincoln assumed that his standard was THE STANDARD, Was Lincoln making the same move as Pol Pot?

Who do we decide what is true? This is the question which occupies are existence. I do not think that might makes right and I think hayestreet would agree. However, I do think there are certain things we can all agree are true. Slavery is wrong. terrorism is wrong.


Regarding the founding fathers, it seems that you have not done much reading on the founding beyond fourth grade history. The government should reflect the VIEWS OF THE PEOPLE . . .Who are the people? Well if you didnt own property, were black, were a women than your views did not count for much.

'You assume that the AMERICAN standard is THE STANDARD.'

The procolamtion of neutrality in 1793 pretty much said as much.


NOT THOSE OF SOME FORIEGN POWER

What was the franco-american alliance of 1778? Seems the French had more influence than a magority of the popluation who did not have the right to vote.

In conjunction Jay's treaty in 1794 basically stated that American neutrality would be pro-english. It is also granted Enlgish commerical and Naval superiority. It implicitly accepted English impressment of American sailors, it committed the United States to compensation to England, unfair impositions on tarriffs etc.

Terror was struck in America. Thousands of Americans were killed and you ask what if other countries think we are the rapists? Well, simply they are wrong.

 

you would have a point, except you're completely wrong...I have not only been there, I worked at digs in both Israel and Egypt. But, aside from that, what really amuses me is that your comments about me and my experience seem as well founded in fact as do your comments about carving up the Middle East...full of sound and fury, signifying nothing...( sorry to quote the writings of another, I couldn't resist...)

 

JAG,

Did it occur to you that some of those 2/3 that did not support revolution might have been frightened of reprocussions from the ruling government (England)? Don't you think it is far more likely that the vast majority of the colonists would support independance if a foreign power had come along and booted England out without any American assistance? Just because people are held down by fear, that doesn't mean that we should not help them. What would be worse, to allow petty dictators like Saddam and the Talibun to rule or to temporarily remove a popular government from power until the people freely chose to support it? I would be willing to take the risk of acting and being wrong when weighed against the risk of not acting and being right.

 

I find it sad that you take such a tone when we've experienced such a tragedy. I remember when I was first in graduate school, I was so ready to deconstruct anything anyone else said. I'll tell you a few things I've learned from your posts:

Your posts rip apart everyone's opinion of what our foreign policy should be.

Your posts assume every government that is in power is a government that represents the populace of that particular country.

You throw around the word democracy as if each country we talk about is one. Which is false.

You assume that you can conduct foreign policy without ever having conflict with other governments opinions.

You assume that the US should never intervene in a country if that government does not ask for the help.

You assume if there is someone that disagrees with their government, we should give them leeway, because their government might be oppressive, although our government is not the one to make that determination. You are with your hindsight and your one or two years in history graduate study.

You assume that we should not project our values because all values held by other governments are equal to our own.

You assume that all governments act in concert with the wishes of their people.

You deconstruct other people's ideas about what we should do without ever offering realistic solutions of your own.

You assume that some 'truth' will make its self apparent so we can take some action without ANY DOUBT.

You assume that innocent until proven guilty is some 100% standard. Like you have to be 100% sure someone is guilty until you act. Even though the standard is 'reasonable doubt' not 100 % sure of guilt.

You assume that political choices are black and white, good or bad, even though you claim not to.

You assume that you KNOW the context past decision were made in, even though you use hindsight to declare past decisions were made incorrectly.

You assume that there is a world where we can always support the oppressed and never support the oppressors, even though there is no situation in which this is true.

You assume there are 'oppressors' and 'oppressed' even though the real world includes people of both categories, usually at the same time.

You assume that you can make foreign policy like you write one of your graduate papers, even though there are so many other variables involved your strict standards would paralize decision making for any crisis.

You assume you can have a foreign policy where you NEVER deal with an oppressive government, although there is no such government.

If God came down and said 'Hey JAG, you make the US foreign policy,' there would be NO COHERENT POLICY OR POLICY ACTION. You could never intervene or interfere with another countries internal problems. You could never take action against a foreign government unless they declared war on you first. Any other issues you would have to butt out of. You would be limited in your response to strategic issues, because you wouldn't want to predetermine the course of other peoples. Basically, you would make ANY ACTION UNWORKABLE.

If you stay in academia when you finish graduate school you'll do great, criticising other people's actions with hindsight, riddling their decisions with philosophical goop. If you finish your degree and move into public policy you'll find that the world is ALL SHADES OF GRAY, and that your laughable philosphoical imperatives of non-interference don't work in the real world of policy decision making.

BTW: I didn't see your responses about WWII because you embedded them in my answers. ALL of your responses assume Germany had a rational actor as a leader. They didn't. Hitler trumps all your speculation since he continually make poor strategic military decisions. The second fron opened in '44, and since it was open less than a year before the German collapse, it is easy to see why 85% of the German casualties happened on the Eastern front, which opened in '41. Sure, US tanks took a beating, but so did Soviet tanks. It could be due to the fact that Germany started to rearm, and develop weapons much earlier than the US or USSR or GB. The p-38, p-47, and p-51 were all superior planes for their time and had GREAT records of success for the time they were in action. The same arguments you use to explain US advances (superior manpower) are ALSO true, if not more so, for the Soviet advances. And its well documented that the best Russian generals were Winter and Famine, much as Napolean had learned in the 19th century, not their superior weaponry. As for the 'lightning warfare' I'm willing to bet you've never talked to a tanker, since they most of them originally came from the cavalry and merely adapted their tactics to adapt to new technology. You need to put your head back in your books if you think these were 'new tactics.' I'm not disallowing innovation based on new techonlogy, but I am denying your completely false claim that some new doctrine was created by the German war machine. Mobility and rapid strike capabilities are not new to warfare. You completely underestimate US industrial capability and completely underestimate the power projection capability the US possessed by '44. You seem to think that the US throttled Japan with a limited number of troops, when the opposite is the case. To simultaneously have active units in the Pacific and Atlantic is no small task. And you forget that the US didn't have naval superiority comparable to the British in earlier centuries. YOur comparison is laughable, especially considering the early Japanese naval victories in the Pacific. No British force ever had to contend with such an opponent.

You claim the Soviets and Germans were not allies, but they agreed to split Poland, which makes them allies in that endeavor. To agree to offensive operations where you spilt the spoils surely makes you allies in fact, if not on your much ballyhooed Non-Aggression Pact paper. I know that the Russians took much more of a beating in the skies than the British, and I know that the p-47 and p-38 and especially the p-51 were superior in everyway to any fighter the Russians put in the air. I know the Germans couldn't invade England because they couldn't get enough landing craft, which played a significant part in Hitler's ultimate decision to postpone Sea Lion indefinitely.

I know that statements like this:

'What? Again, that only makes sense if you reduce us to the level of Soviet foreign policy, which we maintain we're above. Also, it is predicated upon the supposition that we have ANY RIGHT AT ALL to determine the political fates of other nations just because we can...The fact that someone else may be doing the same thing doesn't justify our own actions....We used our might to enforce our ideals on foreign lands who never attacked us or declared war on us, something which is in direct contradiction to the premises upon which the U.S. was founded, and something which we call tyranny when other nations do it...'

Show that you don't put things in context. That you use hindsight to assess what was and was not a correct assumption. I know that I have serious doubts about whether you were around during the Cold War or you'd take a little more care about your declarations for a totally unworkable 'don't interfere' foreign policy.

I know that we CAN JUSTIFY ATTACKING AFGHANISTAN because an admitted terrorist, Bin Laden is being given sanctuary there.

I know that when you are a little older you'll see things a little differently. Or maybe not. Maybe you'll live your life out in your insulated professorial office and you won't have to make real decisions. At least I hope that's the case.

 

That statement makes me sick. That statement implies an incredible death toll, mostly of innocents. The title of this thread makes me sick.

 

Sp let's get this straight....if people support our point of view, we should go in and help them because they need our help...If a people don't support our point of view, it's because they're frightened and oppressed, and we should go in and help them because they need our help...hmmm....