Iran article: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?020218fa_FACT I posted this a few days ago, but evidently no one read it... Why am I not surprised? Anyway, all of the questions asked here are addressed in this article. haven: I enjoy pointing out how unbelievably wrong your multilateralist ideas are in this situation. ...HayesStreet pointed it out. I think assuming that an irrational and evil opponent is rational and balanced is about the dumbest thing you can possibly do. Iraq (Saddam - evil if anyone ever was), Iran (mullahs - highly irrational in their religious zealotry), and N. Korea (if ever a nation could be termed 'crazy', this would be it) - these are very good candidates for singling out. All have hostile leadership. All are developing WMD. All believe themselves to be at war with us. If the Europeans want to ignore reality and hope that these people will suddenly become rational partners at the negotiating table, fine. They can send their envoys, we'll send the tanks. We'll see who accomplishes anything. Grizzled: It's really very simple. If our national interests are at stake, then we are going to act. We are not going to ask anyone's permission. We don't need to. And frankly as far as Iraq is concerned, we are perfectly within our rights to go after him, as Iraq is in violation of UNR 687 (which authorizes force in the event of noncompliance). If the Euros were attacked, we would not try to restrain them. Frankly, I think this just shows how many true friends we have in this world: Zero.
One can swap articles for decades, and accomplish nothing. If you're trying to bury me underneath a mountain of well-reasoned evidence... well, the opposite exists as well. And better reasoned if you ask me... worse in your opinion. It vexes me to no end that you continue to be so contemptuous of your theoretical opposition. The truth of the matter, in most cases in which many intelligent people disagree, is that both sides present a picture of the situation that adequately explains most of the data. We can argue superiority all day... but to think that somehow, you have some secret insight that the logical opposition does not, is foolish. I find the idea that somehow we're the "rational ones," while the rest of the world is somehow not... to be highly unlikely. You've got a huge prima facie burden to meet there. And as long as it's possible to interpret an opponent's actions as rationally determined... one should do so, imo. We're all biological organisms. We have the same basic needs and evolutionary considerations. DNA between different races is more than 98% shared. I tend to that, coming from such similar points, we don't diverge so much as for some people to become "rational" and others "irrational." What is rationally desirable just varies from person-to-person. And even more from society-to-society.
So, in other words, you aren't going to bother reading the article. Fine. Your loss - it's a really good one, and like I said, it answers some of your questions... But ignorance is bliss. When the theoretical opposition believes that we should have to get permission in order to defend our national interests - yes, I am very contemptuous. That is a ridiculous theory - and I don't care if it's popular on college campuses. I saw a good many ridiculous theories floated around when I was in college; the good thing is that I wasn't dumb enough to fall for too many of them. Why? We have been right before when the whole world is wrong. We are right about Saddam - he has to go. We are right about Iran - the mullahs have to stop supporting terrorism and building WMD, or they have to go. We are right about N. Korea - they need to stop developing WMD, reign in their proliferation apparatus, and start acting sensibly at the negotiating table. The "rest of the world" as you put it, would still be sitting on it's hands wringing its brains on what to do about the Taliban if it weren't for us taking a forceful line and actually making a decision. The "rest of the world" as you put it, it totally ineffective in dealing with global security situations. Totally ineffective. Well, are you a complete moral relativist, or aren't you? Make up your mind... Defending our nation is rational. Defending our nation at all costs is rational. Declining self defense because "the rest of the world" wants you to die is not rational. Unless suicide is rational.
If you put China, Russia, India, and maybe England/France in a box, you could combine the entire rest of the world and we would rock their world. If we squared off with China, India or Europe we would smash them no doubt about it. Only Russia has the capability to seriously hurt the US in a conflict. We are the most powerful country that has ever existed on this planet. Population is irrelevant. In the world as it is currently arranged, denial of entry into the US market would destroy the Chinese, Japanese, Indian, or European economies. The reverse is not true. Irrelevant. Mao's tactics of sending overwhelming numbers of soldiers into battle will not work on today's battlefield, unless the objective is population control. Even the PLA recognizes this after the ass whippin' the Iraq's took in Desert Storm. I would agree that imposing our will on the world is the least desirable resolution. But if the choice is acting alone against a state to prevent them from gaining WMD or the capability to distribute/deliver WMD, or not acting because support for a multilateral coalition doesn't exist, we can and will go it alone.
If I may break into this little testosterone-fest for just a moment... HayesStreet: Actually the US does have the military and economic power to impose its will on the rest of the world. The fact that we have not done so as of yet is a testament to our benevolence. *Wow*. Just... *wow*. Do you realise how extraordinarily, obnoxiously arrogant this sounds? And it's not a testament to anything, really, except capitalism's quest for foreign markets. Since you're the most powerful country in the world, with the most desirable cultural products, of course you can conquer with trade rather than might. Your rhetoric of 'freedom and democracy' just covers your asses. treeman: The "rest of the world" as you put it, would still be sitting on it's hands wringing its brains on what to do about the Taliban if it weren't for us taking a forceful line and actually making a decision. May I just remind you, briefly, that many countries (as well as many feminist organisations) have been begging the US to do something about the Taliban for years? Or that the US government gave 40 million dollars to the Taliban a matter of months before the attacks, as well as funding them for years in their war against the USSR? How 'rational' and 'benevolent' were those actions? Or could it be that the US, like every other country, acts in its own self-interest? We have been right before when the whole world is wrong. When would that have been? I know these types of arguments are usually deeply futile. But acting as if the entire rest of the world is this monolithic 'other' you can ignore at will unless 'it' falls in line is so, so, so bloody r****ded.
Just a couple of minor points: 1) we gave the Taliban cash for cracking down on the opium trade - part of our ludicrous war on drugs. Hindsight is 20/20... and 2) the Taliban did not exist during the Soviet occupation, so we did not give them aid. We gave the mujahadeen aid; the Pakistani ISI created (and largely controlled) them. But I agree, we should have taken them out sooner. If that's what you're implying. Umm, let's see: 1) fighting drugs, and 2) fighting the Soviets. Not all that irrational... And when did I say that nations don't act in their own self-interests? That is the core of my entire argument. For some odd reason haven keeps saying he believes that, yet at the same time says that the US should ignore its own self-interests where they conflict with anyone else's. I can see how you'd get confused. Haven is sending mixed messages here... Well the sanctions on Iraq, for one. Although that has not, of course, played itself out completely yet... So, better example. Hmm. 1981 - UN vote on infant formula code. 118-1 (we were the 1 against). No one implements it anymore after it was found to increase HIV in infants overseas... Reagan facing down the "Evil Empire" and Qhadafi - neither of which is a problem anymore... But those sure were unpopular stances back then, and quite reminiscient of the current situation, if I might add. No, acting as if we must get permission to defend ourselves is monumentally r****ded. Acknowledging that we don't need such permission is simply realistic observation. Hide and watch - we will act unilaterally when we have to. We'd rather have a coalition; multilateralism is certainly preferred if possible. But we will not be hamstrung by a coalition if our interests are threatened. To act as if we should be is idiotic, not to mention suicidal. Are you haven's girlfriend or something?
treeman: It's in your interest to build a strong team. You want to be Magic Johnson, not Stephan Marbury. You need to pass the ball sometimes, and involve your team members. If you don't respect your team members, they aren't going to play as hard for the team. It's is all about team building. This is not an airy fairy concept. It is very real, and has significant consequences. This doesn't mean you always make decisions by consensus. Sometimes you have to go with a majority decision, or even occasionally take the ball and do it yourself, but you better make damn sure you make the right play when you do. The trouble is that the US has, in the past, often been reactionary and short sighted about what it's done, so you don't have a very high level of trust built up with your friends about such decisions. In the past decade or so I think you've done all right, but when Bush starts talking about the "axis of evil" we roll our eyes and think, "oh no, not again!" There is no reason for the US to proceed unilaterally at this point. Nothing critical is happening in Iraq that I have heard of. This is simply a question of how to solve an old problem, and given the regional sensitivities and the possible consequences for all of us, not just the US, care should be taken to take the right steps. The US would be stronger, and we all would be stronger, if it would play the role of team leader, not team prima donna. With regard to friends, the US has lots of friends. Canada and New Zealand aren't the only ones. But friends do not simply acquiesce to your every whim. Haystreet: I could quibble with all of your points to varying degrees, but this is really the meat of our discussion. Do you really think the rest of the world wants Hussein to have WMD? I don't. I think the questions are about how to approach the problem, and I think this is a legitimate point of discussion. For the US to proceed unilaterally without consultation would be significant mistake. And for the US to use pointless and inflammatory rhetoric like "axis of evil" is just something I just can't understand … unless it was strictly for domestic consumption. How is this all playing in England? Dimsie: There's always room for some estrogen. I've been enjoying some Garageland tunes, btw, and I'm particularly enjoying The New Pornographers. Thanks for the tips.
How exactly did Reagan face down the "evil empire"? He did nothing, (and we can all thank our lucky stars he didn't), and the USSR simply collapsed because it was a corrupt unsustainable dictatorship (it wasn't a real communist state, of course). This allowed the US and the west to step in and help with the transition. These dynamics would have been very different if they would have fallen in a war. This could be a lesson for dealing with Iraq, except that Hussein seems to be holding on longer than we expected he would.
haven -- how 'rational' is it to call someone a bigot? Is it possible that the 'bigot' has different ideas on what is 'rationally desirable'? Unless you're going to say that 'bigots' in the US are less rational than the "Axis of Evil"? Just an honest question from a simple man.
Hide and watch - we will act unilaterally when we have to. OK, Rambo. Addressing your points one by one would be absurd - you're not listening. Let me know when you're planning on coming out from behind the keyboard to TCB in the Middle East. But shouldn't you be living in Montana or something? That way you'll be safe when the UN brings in the New World Order. All this macho posturing by some extremists makes US culture look *really* ridiculous, you know. Even to its allies. Are you sure you want the entire western world to think you're a bunch of dorks? (It might be too late by now, of course.) Oh, and I'm not haven's girlfriend - I'm Elvis Costello's wife. Grizzled: thanks for seeking out some bands - very cool of you.
Grizzled: It's in our interests to build a strong team, but what good is a team that won't take the court? What good is a team that refuses to play? Totally useless. I think everyone else needs to consider this: we're going to go unilaterally if we have to. It's going to be done, regardless of wehat anyone thinks. We will remember who helped and who did not. You guys and the Euros would do well to side with the winning team. If you guys want to remain neutral (and bash us for getting the job done), then you aren't going to have a whole lot of say in the aftermath. Like it or not. And I just can't say this enough times: our interests are threatened, and we will defend ourselves regardless of what any other nations think we should do. What amazes me is that you guys and the Euros don't seem to understand that your interests are at risk, too. Friends? Friends don't tell friends "Naw, dude, don't defend yourself, just let him kick your ass"... If you're not going to help, then kindly shut the hell up and stay out of the way. Well, for starters he got the Star Wars myth going, which ruined their economy... But more importantly, he called it what it was and threw the gauntlet down at a time when doing so altered the strategic landscape. That took balls. It forced Gorbachev to look inward, and it forced their hand at the negotiating table. Gorbachev came up with the right answers (reform, reduction of armaments, etc), but Reagan was prepared to go the distance had he made the wrong choices. The lesson for Iraq is you give the motherf*er an ultimatum and force his hand. If he gives the wrong answer, you take him out. This really is not as complicated as some are trying to make it. Iran and North Korea are somewhat complicated, but Iraq is pretty damn clear. Sticks and stones, lady. You're not listening. I've heard your spiel a thousand times before from others, and it always turns out to be wrong. Let me know when you're planning on leaving the commune and joining us in the real world... "Macho posturing by some extremists"? You mean the US government? If not backing down from a serious threat (just wait until nukes start going off, or smallpox makes a mysterious comeback - then you'll realize the gravity of the situation) makes us dorks, well then we're dorks. I frankly do not care what the "entire western world" thinks, if they are so weak as to seek a peaceful resolution with a*holes like Saddam and the mullahs. You haven't figured it out yet: You cannot deal with these people peacefully. They only respond to force. In the nice fairy tale world that you and so many others live in, we could send the diplomats over and get the whole thing worked out by lunchtime. In the real world, that does not work. It never has worked with either of them. Appeasement does not work with sociopathic dictators. You'da thunk Europe would've learned that one with Hitler... And as I said, I don't really care what you think. I care about what is going to happen, not what a bunch of whining pansies think should happen. And what is going to happen is this: We are going to remove Saddam, one way or another. If Iran's mullahs do not change their ways, we are going to help the opposition there to overthrow them. We are going to stop responding to N. Korea's threats and extortion tactics, and demand that they stop acting like psychotic babies. The "entire western world" can join us and have a say in what happens afterward, or they can b**** at us and have no say in the aftermath. Your choice. You know, I just really just don't get it. Are you people hoping that you'll get nuked? Attacked with smallpox? It is inevitable if we don't act. In this game, it is absolutely imperative that we act before they do. We are defending your cities. We are defending your economies. We are not just doing this for ourselves - the "entire western world" is a target, not just the US. Why do you not understand that?
Yeah, actually, treeman is in the army along with my Lynus. I would trust he has a little more right to talk about this intelligently than any of you. Those men risk their lives to save your's, but you don't even seem to care. I bet you would've been against World War II as well. Doesn't matter that Hitler was a bad man...we just don't want America to seem "macho." And who are you to say what the "entire Western World" thinks of us. If I recall correctly, we saved their asses in World War II after they tried to "deal peacefully" with Hitler. I guess that's what you want to see happen with Hussein as well and you won't be happy until he kills millions of people too. Only this time, it'll probably be Americans. If we CAN do something and we don't, it'll be a lot worse than if we don't need to do something and we do. Treeman's right....look at the consequences of not going in. If you can't see them, you might as well end it all right now because that's how we'll all end up. The world is not some utopia and I'm glad it's not. But I can be glad that I have brave men to protect me than an insane dictator threatening children all over the world with nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. It'll be funny when you're all thanking the army and government (and treeman and Lynus) later for saving the country and the world!
Let me know when you're planning on leaving the commune and joining us in the real world... Unlike some others here, implying that I'm a communist doesn't offend me at all. Would you like to try that little zinger again? Go on, Cletus, really open up a can of whup-ass this time. It's probably the only action of any kind you're likely to get during this war. "Macho posturing by some extremists"? You mean the US government? Yeah, that's who I mean. By the standards of most other democracies, the Republican Party isn't really centrist. In the nice fairy tale world that you and so many others live in, we could send the diplomats over and get the whole thing worked out by lunchtime. I don't believe that at all. But I think ignoring *every other country*, including your ostensible allies, really undermines the fragile coalition inspired by the events of September 11. We are not just doing this for ourselves - the "entire western world" is a target, not just the US. Precisely why ignoring us is just a tad, um, ridiculous. Have you ever been out of this country? Most of the people I know who sound like you haven't ever been out of Texas. If you've managed to maintain your philosophies *and* you're a world traveller, you're probably a wee bit... unbalanced. Good on you though - such wilful idiocy requires a great deal of determination. Oh, and Princess? once again, . I'm not a pacifist. I'm not against your precious Lynus. I'm not against dismantling terrorist networks and removing weapons of mass destruction. I am, however, against arrogant unilateral rhetoric or actions. Additionally: World War II had been going on for over two years before the US deigned to 'save our asses'. I rather resent your implication that the rest of the Allied forces (which included my grandfather, by the way) weren't actually *fighting* during 1940 and 1941. If I roll my eyes any more they might freeze that way.
Dimsie, my Commonwealth compatriot, it would seem that we share a similar heritage and views. God Save the Queen! j/k treeman: I'm not really interested in this becoming a heated discussion. I know that you are gearing up to ship out, and I suppose you may very well end up on the ground in Iraq. I have great respect for the commitment that you and other military people make, and for the service you give to your countries, especially at this time when the likelihood of seeing action seems very high. I believe that the countries that are opposing intervention at this time are doing so because they honestly don't believe that that path, at this point in time, will lead to the best solution. Only time will tell us which is correct, and even then we won't really know what outcomes other options many have brought. The present reality, however, is that you are about to put you life on the line for your country, and possibly mine too. I have great respect for that, and I'm not interested in arguing with you on this or related topics before you leave. When you get back, then we can have it out.
Dimsie, Considering that our only interaction on this board was my defending you in your exchange on racism with Princess, I don't feel your sarcasm and name-calling is warranted. And the implication that calling for unilateral action is somehow only the result of a hormonal imbalance is both silly and insulting. Hmmm, just the facts, ma'am . I'm sorry if offends you, but the truth is the truth. The US is, in fact, the only SUPERPOWER. They call it being a Superpower for a reason. Because we are MORE powerful than other countries both economically and militarily. I don't remember even saying anything about 'freedom and democracy.' But I do take offense at your mischaracterization. I believe you claim to be a student of history, so I have a challenge for you... Find ANY other country that has had the power the US has relative to the other powers that was more benevolent. I'll be interested to see your conclusion. The US makes plenty of decisions that are in our own self interest, but so does every other nation. Nice. Name calling is quite an intellectual enterprise. If you'll look at a newspaper, you'll see that in Afghanistan the rest of the world WAS pretty much ignored. Bush made it clear that we were going in and the rest of the world could join in or sit out. NATO and the UN were offered up to make the operation truly multilateral, and Bush decided against that, preferring not to divide decision making with 'others.' I'm sure you've got the small kingdom complex (coming from NZ is it?), and you want to sit at the adult table for Christmas dinner. But there is no need to get snippy.
I would be interested to see the other 'historians' on this board respond to this, since Treeman doesn't get much 'history' love. Haven, I have to say I've never heard someone cast Chamberlain as a Machiavellian character. Care to elaborate or quote some sources? History, and more than high school textbooks, treat Chamberlain as something quite the opposite. It is certainly a point worth pursuing if you are serious, since Chamberlain and appeasement and failure are pretty much inextricably linked in modern history.
Calling Mr. Elvis Costello: you were right, honey. I should never have started. HayesStreet: Considering that our only interaction on this board was my defending you in your exchange on racism with Princess, I don't feel your sarcasm and name-calling is warranted. Yeah, thanks for that. I haven't called anyone names. Oh, I called treeman 'Cletus'. But in some cultures that could be complimentary. My sarcasm, on the other hand, is fully warranted. IMO. And the implication that calling for unilateral action is somehow only the result of a hormonal imbalance is both silly and insulting. Actually, I wasn't implying that at all. I was implying that there was a ridiculous amount of machismo being displayed. That might be insulting to you too, of course. Depending on what you think of machismo. Hmmm, just the facts, ma'am . I'm sorry if offends you, but the truth is the truth. The US is, in fact, the only SUPERPOWER. They call it being a Superpower for a reason. Because we are MORE powerful than other countries both economically and militarily. Sigh. Um, I hate to quote myself, but you may recall me saying this: 'Since you're the most powerful country in the world...' So I'm not offended by your superpower status, and I'm not denying that it exists either. No one's trying to knock you off the top of the totem pole. Chill. Find ANY other country that has had the power the US has relative to the other powers that was more benevolent. What a specious argument. For one thing, there's never been a country as powerful as you are in many ways; for another, you can't be generally characterised as 'benevolent'! In terms of foreign policy, some things you do are good. Some things you do are bad. We could try to list the pros and cons and see who wins, but yeesh. Do you really want to bother? Name calling is quite an intellectual enterprise. Again, I haven't called you any names. I've called your argument and attitude r****ded. I don't see any reason to change my opinion yet. I'm sure you've got the small kingdom complex (coming from NZ is it?), and you want to sit at the adult table for Christmas dinner. But there is no need to get snippy. Damn skippy I'm snippy. The trained monkey you have making speeches for you is rapidly alienating even your *allies*. How about you start working with everyone else for a change, before this blows up in your face again? By the way, if the only thing you can think of to say about my country is that it's small - a fact of which I'm well aware - then I'm doing pretty well. Hey, aren't you in London? Try going to a pub in Shepherd's Bush and telling my countrypeople they have 'small kingdom complex'. Since you respect machismo so much, I'm sure there are a few enormous rugby players there who could address that issue for you.
Since I have lived in both the UK and here in the USA, I have a perspective that fits both sides. I understand the rest of the world worrying that we are going to go off and get them involved in something that they don't want any part of. Also, I understand our President making the comments he has made, he is really just trying to get those countries to step up and do something about the terrorists in their countries, or he is saying we will act on our own. I do think that behind the scenes Bush is going to our allies and they are talking about solutions, now that does not mean that we all have to agree, we are all different countries and each one has it's own agenda. No one likes a bully, and the rest of the world is afraid that we are becoming a bully and throwing our weight around without consulting them. I can understand their angst about these things, they are afraid that we are going to start something that gets them involved in a war. Who can blame them for that? However, I do think that the US has a right to act, on it's own if necessary, to protect its borders. Maybe the real underlying problem is that we seem to be moving towards being the World's police, and no one likes that !!! DaDakota
Haven said: The only reason I ever respond anymore is because I don't want people who still have open minds about the subject to be browbeaten. That is why I continue posting on this issue as well. Princess tried the time honored tactic of trying to shut up the opposition by saying that those who plan to go and fight or who are fighting have more right to their opinion. This was the line during the Vietnam War and many soldiers later admitted that they came to regret this. It is because our loved one are on the line (and not Bush/Cheney's) that we need to constantly question the direction our country takes. Interestingly, I have virtually never had an actual combat veteran of Vietnam give me any grief for avoiding the draft and applying to be a conscientious objector. I'm open about telling them. Only those peripeherally involved and mostly those who are younger or older see these issues so simplistically. Only those who were around then, or understand history a little better I guess, understand how then the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong, backed by China seemed initially just as "evil" as the "evil empire" or "axis of evil" do to you folks now. We got defeated by this group many thousands of miles from our shorelines and guess what it wasn't one step from the enemy landing in Galveston.
