Actually, most of the articles you post really aren't that good either. An essay that critically analyzes a situation is generally going to run between 15 and 20 pages at least. Simply takes that long to isolate all the variables, deal with all the objections well, etc. But there's a problem with that: fewer people read long, objective, well-reasoned articles because they're tedious. So good authors condense their work, or bad authors get away with shoddy scholarship in writing short pieces. Such work doesn't prove anything. But it has a few nice line, and makes for good bbs material, I suppose.
How about just leave them alone to make their mistakes and learn like the rest of the world? There are countries in central Africa suffering the same problems but we aren't doing anything about them. Why? O-I-L. Since no one here ever wants to give up our precious way of life, we are stuck dependant on sources of oil from all over the globe. Even if we did drill in Alaska, it wouldn't be enough for us. Until the US makes the decision that oil is a dying form of fuel and dedicates a significant portion of its resources to developing alternatives, we are stuck with the problems over there we helped to foster not by our actions but by our presence.
JAG: Yes, and did you see haven's post that I was responding to? I was using his words. But those three enemies - I would say their governments fit the "irrational and evil" bill. Your implication was that I think that everyone who disagrees with us is "irrational and evil", and that was what I really disagree with. My bad, I should have just said that your implication was both wrong and ridiculous. I'll be more precise next time. haven: Do you think I'm going to post a 15-20 page article here? I tried to post part of a relatively long article here earlier, and even you wouldn't bother reading it. The articles I post here are of two types: short but thought- (and debate-) provoking, or news items. I am not going to post critical analyses here, since people - even intelligent people () - won't read them.
Jeff: I'd actually prefer doing that myself. The sooner we can switch over to coal from oil, the better. (Contrary to public belief, coal can be converted to virtually emission-free methanol very clean, but a national changeover might cost a trillion $ and take 15 years...) But that would probably be the worst thing that could happen to them... Look what happens to non-US supported regimes? Iran, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, Algeria, Afghanistan... They're total basket cases, and the assholes still run the show. That said, I'd still like to get the hell out of there and let them seek their own destinies - however bleak those might be without our influence...
treeman... Rather than deal with each and every one of your arguments, I would like to point out 2 things... Each and every one of them is based on 1 of 2 premises, that morality is irrelevant, or that these people represent an imminent threat, and the correct response is to intervene... 1) If morality is irrelevent, what exactly are we fighting for? Why did we ever get involved outside our own borders? How do you distinguish between one nation and another if there is no moral distinction, skin colour? Place of origin? A nation, especially one which purports to be representative of freedom and democracy IS about morality...You are arguing in exact opposition with the foundation of the United States, whose founding fathers placed morailty above survival...Henry's " Give me liberty or give me death!" comes to mind...If you truly believe that morality comes second to survival, and you would forsake the principles upon which the nation was founded for the sake of self-preservation, I would suggest that we have little more to debate...Obviously, if you eliminate each and every potential enemy, regardless of merit or morals, you will live longer than they do... And please don't choose now to split geo-political hairs...Either morality supercedes survival or it doesn't, and whatever lines you may draw on that scale would be tenous at best..Whether that would work from a purely pragmatic sense or not is another argument, and one which I have neither the time nor the inclination to debate beyond what we have already done... 2) Where and when we perceive threats is so subjective, how can you possibly use it to justify aggression? Were the Soviets right in trying to put nukes into Cuba, as a response to the presence of American nukes aimed at them on their borders? Americans, I might add, who had shown a willingness to use them...What actions would that imminent threat, from the Soviet perspective, have justified? Every single one of your arguments assumes that we have the right to discern when and where a threat exists, and intervene as we see fit, an issue upon which we disagree... Oh, one more point...you misunderstood me with regards to democracy and military action...I was trying to communicate that the need to have popular support in and of itself is a factor in restraining aggression, as Viet Nam shows, and I only cited BBS arguments as evidence that it is difficult..I never addressed the latest Gallup pole, but should I do so, I would like to point out that such polls are only representative of current opinion, and that changes all the time...For example, at the time he was elected, more Americans ( according to national polls) believed that Aliens exist and live among us than supported George Bush as president...as you say, interesting...
You have quoted Pat Buchanan as a member of the far right that is opposed to action in Iraq. Buchanan is consistent about interventions on foreign soil and you are not. <A HREF="http://www.ahram.org.eg/weekly/1999/425/in2.htm"> The right debates isolationism</A> <i> ...On one side of this rift is Pat Buchanan, one of the leading spokespersons for the isolationist trend. He is also a champion of traditional social morality and protectionism. Buchanan's view on the war is quite direct: United States armed forces should not go into action unless American honour or American lives or vital American interests are at stake. In his own words, "I don't think there's any vital national interest in whose flag should fly over Kosovo and I don't believe that the United States should be the world's cop looking for thugs to beat up." ..... </i> <A HREF="http://www.antiwar.com/szamuely/sz081000.html">From Antiwar.com</A> <i> ..........In a memorable exchange on NBC's Meet the Press on April 25, 1999, at the height of NATO's onslaught on Yugoslavia, Pat Buchanan suggested to Lieberman: "We have failed in our strategic objectives, and it is now becoming basically no longer a war for Kosovo but a war to save NATO's credibility and NATO's face. And that does not justify sending an army of 100,000 American ground troops into the Balkans." Lieberman responded with the usual bromides about Munich and appeasement: Buchanan "reveals a lack of learning the lessons of World War II and, indeed, of the Cold War….America is more than a piece of real estate. America is a series of moral principles that begin with the right to life and liberty that the Declaration says our creator gave us….Also, the Second World War taught us that if you don't stop a smaller conflict in Europe early it's going to spread and we're going to get into a world war." Buchanan responded by tartly asking if NATO action had brought peace in the Balkans any nearer: "We have widened the war. We have estranged the Russians. We have destabilized Macedonia and Montenegro and we have ignited, not caused, but ignited, the greatest human rights catastrophe in the history of the Kosovar Albanians. How can you defend the policy of Balkan Bay of Pigs?" ........ </i> <A HREF="http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/02/president.2000/buchanan/">Buchanan kicks off third White House bid</A> <i> .........In comments, bordering on isolationist, the conservative firebrand, said the U.S. should disengage from the peace process in the Balkans. "For half a century we have willfully and rightly defended Europe and Asia so that free nations could break bread at Democracy's table. It is their turn now to start picking up the tab. Bosnia and Kosovo are in Europe's backyard not ours. They, not we, should police that blood soaked peninsula," he said........... </i> If a change in Iraq's government provided a better humanitarian situation for the Iraqi people, would that be a good thing? Mango
JAG: Uuuh, our lives? We can argue about morality and make moral choices later on. Dead people do not have the option of being moral or immoral beings. Yes, I am, and I have always thought that that was a rather stupid statement. Seems to me that had ole' Patrick attained death, he would not have had a choice to make between liberty or oppression... Dead men don't have the luxury of spouting preferences. You believe that liberty is worth dying for. I would personally put my life at risk to secure liberty for those who would survive me. I am actually doing so, too, so don't tell me that I'm just saying that... But let me ask you this: Would you kill in order to preserve liberty? I know that our pacifist friends would not. What strikes me is that if you are unwilling to kill to maintain your liberty, then you will certainly lose it. I will kill in order to maintain both liberty and survival. I will not enjoy doing it, and I really hope that I don't have to. But if forced with the choice... it is an easy one to make. There is nothing subjective about observing Saddam constantly claim that America is in for a big, nasty surprise. There is nothing subjective about the numerous and well-founded reports on his WMD development-activities. There is nothing subjective about observing the same activities from Iran's mullahs. I am not just percieving that they intend to harm Americans, they are actually doing it. How subjective was the marine barracks attack in Beirut? That was a pretty objective event. I'd say the effects were observable, to say the least. I agree that popular support is vital - I've never questioned that. It is also necessary in American politics to obtain relatively fast and painless victories in order to maintain popular support - one reason I would not select a military option for either Iran or N. Korea, as they may entail significant casualties (or at least, N. Korea would). There is no doubt in my mind that an Iraq operation would be fast and painless enough to maintain popular support, though. I am even more confident in that prediction than I was about the same prediction for Afghanistan. But I agree that it can change. It will change if we lose the momentum, and going into Iraq will not have that effect. If we don't maintain the momentum, then we just might end up locked in a Vietnam syndrome again... Hence my personal belief that glynch's motives are less than altruistic.
All I can say is that we agree to disagree. I feel that what you die for, if you do, is connected to your morality..Either morality transcends death, or it doesn't exist... The rest is ethics...Also, I would suggest that you missed my point, about moral distinctions between nations..if we have no relevant moral issues with these people, why don't we get out of Saudi Arabia, abandon Israel, and mind our own yard? I guarantee that any realistic answer will incorporate morality...If not for morality, why does Israel, hence the primary argument these people have with us, exist? Nations ARE about morality; our basic body compositions don't change at borders, our systems do. These systems are based on different beliefs and philosophies, not different methods of attire, and beliefs and philosophies are based upon morality. hence, the basis for any national identity is it's reality, and if/when you abandon that moral distinction, the only thing different between you and another nation is a line on a map.
We'll have do agree to disagree then. I don't believe we should only act when there is a consensus of 'world opinion.' Under such philosophical guidelines, the Britain you hold in esteem would not have continued to hold out (since you've stated already that their resolve to hold out came from their own philosophical imperative, not the fear of their safety). At the time there were few nations that supported continued opposition to Germany. Not Russia. Not any of Asia. Not even the US (as you've pointed out). Not France (although under duress I guess). 'World opinion' could be for giving anyone who wants nuclear technology access? Would you favor that? You cleverly avoided a committment on the point. 'World opinion' would not have backed intervention in Germany before they invaded Poland. Would you still say we should not have acted to prevent the holocaust? There was not a total consensus of world opinion to support intervention in Bosnia. Even when action WAS taken, other countries did not support it (such as Russia). Do you think we should have stood by and watched the continued ethnic cleansing? The story of genocide is not only one of what people will do to each other, but also of what people will stand by and witness without action. Stop telling us what you WOULDN'T do and tell us what you WOULD do. Socrates also cleverly picked apart other arguments by rarely committing to any concrete action on his own. If that is your tact then I'm wasting my time. Which intervention has the US undertaken in the last 10 years that was undemocratic or which one left something other than democratic regime in place? What are we supposed to be watched for? World opinion calls for us to help stabilize the post Cold War world, and then castigates us for doing it. The positive impact of US action can outweigh, IMHO, the threat of an tyrannical imperialist America. Mainly because I believe the probability of that happening is extremely low. Now you are making comparisons that don't fit. We don't annex territory, so we'd hardly be a reincarnation of Rome. Exactly my point. AND you would have us stand aside unless there was a consensus of 'world opinion,' which means we'd completely ignore genocide even if we were aware of it. I don't agree. I'm not a cultural relativist. AND the fact is that acquiring WMD is radically different than anything the empires of the past faced. If our society says the ultimate goal is to reduce crime, then yeah, an autocratic regime is the way to go. If our society says we should be a force out in the world, to try and stop genocide, to try and maintain stability of nations and remove external threats to our own security, it would be tyrannical for our government to ignore that. If a particular country is ruled by a dictator, and removing him would allow the emergence of a democratic regime, would we be tyrannical to remove him? Is the net effect of a unilateral removal that any democratic emergence is actually a tyrannical one since it came from tyrannical means? I don't think we live in a philosophical vaccuum where we live by absolutes. Salladin was not comparable to the powers we are talking about. Ok, with the Founding Fathers argument this is going to get messy. Are you saying that the founding fathers acted out of principle and not self interest? That is cool, but I just want to make sure before we go any further. And when do you suppose we abandoned these ideas? Was it before or after we expanded West? Personally I believe we still live in that country. When Jefferson sent the Marines to Tripoli was it tyrannical? It wasn't really to spread democracy, right? It was to ensure our interests and the safety of our citizens. Sounds just like the 'pretense' you speak so often about. Sounds just like the arguments we use to justify action against Iraq et al. I don't know yet. But i'll damn well tell you when I decide which conspiracy I buy into! How is this relevant to our discussion of taking on Iraq because of his drive for WMD? I've never advocated removing Saddam because of Al Queda. And the whole pretext to this conversation is international intervention. Uh, I do believe in self preservation. We can start with that. Now I've answered your question so you answer mine. Do you want a world in which the North Korea's and the Iraq's and the Taliban's have nuclear weapons because as 'sovereigns' they have the right to decide for themselves whether to possess nukes or not. Do you think that members of a nuclear state that disintegrates, that take personal possession of a nuke, should decide if they get to keep it? If you DO then we are at an impasse. I do not. I recognize that there are situations in life when we are hypocrites. That doesn't mean absolute philosophical consistency is possible or even desirable. At that time who would we have been enemies with??? I am addressing the probability of whether the US would have rolled over the rest of the world absent the USSR, which is YOUR assertion. I would think you should give us a better understanding of WHO we would have rolled over and WHY if they were friendly. Absent the Soviet influenced countries we were on relatively good terms with everyone else at the end of WWII. If the alternative is the disintegration of the international system as we know it, not 10 Yugoslavias but 100 or 1000, then history has taught us that is not a desirable outcome. This is where your 'world opinion' arguments start to break down. Would you favor allowing 1000 genocides the scope of Bosnia or Rwanda? Louis is not a strong point so I'll defer. But this is comparable to the US how? Again we are not threatening to annex anyone are we? And I was touring Alsace with my family a couple of months ago and I got a different impression of 'the Sun King' at places like Haut Kroenigsberg (not sure of the spelling) where we toured a extemely well restored castle Louis had razed, along with its occupants. I think you've got a big contradiction here. While Napolean's ends were to bring about more transparency and in a way, democracy (such as the civil code, putting everyone - except himself - under the law), his means, which consisted primarily of conquest, were hardly democratic. While you can contend that he resisted aggression, that argument only holds up to France's borders. And if he WAS justified in pursuing these aggressors outside his borders, so can we justify acting out of our own security interests. For someone who fears even the 'risk' of the slippery slope, I find your admiration for Napolean curious. I doubt you'll see Bush crown himself Emperor, or annex other empires, or invade Russia. True, but in this case which way do you go? 'World opinion' at the time was pretty much against Napolean? Yes? So you support Napolean or the 'alliances' that coalesced against him? Hmmm, must be philosphically consistent. And if you're a 'big ends don't justify the means' person, how can a society be democratic with a single unassailable leader controlling decisions with no appeal for the opposition? And how to do you tell the difference? World opinion??? Again see genocide. Intervening to stop it may not be defending oneself but IMHO it is worthy of action. And again in cases like Iraq, where Saddam claims we are still at war, is aggression or self preservation to deny him the capability to wipe us off the planet?
Holy crap! It took me thirty minutes to get through your last post JAG! And I hit send and there are all these other posts! Doh! If morality is the most relevant criteria for action, how do you reconcile that with NOT acting in cases of genocide or mass repression? Is your position that the founding fathers ideals are inconsistent with this? Or that they felt we shouldn't act outside the borders (as Washington apparently warned when he said we should not become entangled in European conflicts)? Should we be isolationist like Washington or should we act on our moral beliefs? I am very confused as to how you are claiming to be consistent. 'World opinion' was not the deciding factor for the Founding Fathers.
JAG: Well, that one's actually mostly about oil. As soon as we solve our little energy dilemma, we can "mind our own yard" and get the hell out of there. Of course, there is a moral aspect there: if we do that, then the end result would likely be Israel eventually nuking everyone. Right now, we are the only thing holding Israel back, and if we remove our support from them, we will give up our leverage over them (along with our ability to restrain them). In addition, if we abandon Saudi, Egypt, Jordan, etc their regimes will almost certainly be overthrown and replaced with more rabid and radical islamic regimes, who would likely attampt another combined invasion of Israel. That, of course, would likely spark their nuclear demise... So, you can say that our presence there is destabilizing, and you would be correct. You could also argue that our departure would be extremely destabilizing, and you would likely be correct (we won't know until it happens). In that case, how immoral is our presence there, our support of Israel, etc? If it prevents a widespread regional conflict that would likely end with nuclear use... How immoral is that? But, that said, call me immoral: I still want to get out of there. I am pretty much of the mind that if they want to act like adults, great, but if they want to kill each other, that is really their business, and nothing we do will stop them in the long term. Of course, there's that whole energy thing, so we can't really just abandon the area to it's fate, yet...
Azadre: That's the general idea, Azadre. We do not intend to hurt the people in either country - on the contrary, we intend to liberate them. And it wouldn't work if the people in both countries didn't hate their leaders...
Ah the mysterious Mango. I was trying to be nice to you. Mango the guy who never has an opinion of his own. Who has only the sneaky little question., who fights for right wing beliefs in a fashion by trying to be like Joe Friday on the old Dragnet program, a no non- nonsense cop, "just the facts, mam." Hides behind a veneer of objective fact finding, but only finds right wing "facts". Come on Mango, just come out with a right wing blood thirsty war loving comment you'll feel better for it. Mango, "consitency is the hobgoblin of little minds". These are complex issues, sorry about that. Complex moral and political issues are messy. Treeman, is consistent for instance; he has never met a war he didn't like. He craves war with Iraq. Doesn't matter if it ties in with 9\11; doesn't matter if all our allies except for Kuwait and Israel are against it. Doesn't matter if actual experienced military men who are generals urge caution. He has no doubts nor nuancy in his consistency. His consistency is not impressive, moral or intelligent. Do you really expect me to agreee 100% with Pat Buchanan? He is generally speaking a right winger, like you; I'm a left winger. I only quote him because he is a Republican, Treeman has a hard time calling him a communist and, Buchanan at least has the guts to speak his mind even if it is unpopular.
1) I disagree that the world opinion wasn't in favour of Britain holding out, I believe that they were unwilling or unable to do it themselves, an important distinction. After Hitler invaded Poland, virtually every non-Fascist nation declared against him in principle..the Brits were just the only ones to back it up without being attacked themselves. And I never said I hold them in esteem, just citing historical facts as I see them. 2) Had you asked the world whether or not they would have wanted the U.S to invent the atomic bomb in the 1st place, they would have said no, but the reality was that no one had the authority to prevent any nation from improving itself technologically...as is the case now. And I do not agree that world opinion would advocate 'giving' nuclear power to anyone who wants it. If it does, I will address that once I am convinced of that fact, because it would, I'll admit, be a difficult question to answer. 3) Once again, apples and oranges. Firstly, I disagree that world opinion was against opposition to Germany, just unable to ennact it. Secondly, the world did not know of the mass genocide until after the war was almost over...If it did, then we are in a horrible possition, in that the Nazis' initially tried to 'export the Jewish problem' by sending them out of Germany, and ALL NATIONS, including the United States and Britain, either refused to take them ( in many cases going so far as to physically ship them back to Germany) or would only agree to take them for very high charges which, obviously, was essebtially the same thing in that Germany placed little enough value on their lives to begin with. So, if the 'world opinion ' was informed of the mass genocide before the war, how can we make any claim to moral justification for resolving a situation we helped to create..either that, or we didn't know, and there could not have been any 'world opinion ' on the matter... 4) In terms of what i would do, aside from objecting to your ordering me to STOP doing something, I will say that it is too complex an issue for me to deal with in this forum. I can easily and quicly say that I think something is wrong, without explaining my alternative...For example, you and I were to come across someone suffering from a severe headache, and you were to advocate cutting his head off, I would object. I might have a better answer, or I might not, but that wouldn't prevent me from stating that decapitation is not the answer. And were you to demand that I back up my objection by immediately explaining my solution, and time were to prevent that, I don;t think that that would lend credence to your solution...This is, in fact, part of my argument...I think that any solution which can be explained in a few minutes isn't sufficient to deal with the world we live in, that's why we hire/elect thousands of people to spend the majority of their waking days trying to resolve them...but it only takes a minute to say 'no', and observe what is wrong...Alternatives take a lot longer. 5) I completely disagree about what world opinion calls for us to do in the first place...This is thrown around all the time, and has little foundation in fact...The world, as a whole, would prefer that the U.S. minded it's own business...What they DO say, is that if you are going to throw your weight around as world cop, do it right and be consistent...the world sees that the U.S is quick to intervene somwhere like Kuwait, where it's oil interests are in play, but that there were simultaneous attrocities taking place all over the globe, especially Africa, and the U.S did little if anything...and when people point out this inconsistency, some Americans take this as the world demanding that they be a world cop, and use that to justify their next excercise in sefl-interest. 6) you are arguing semantics...We don't annex territory because it is a different world...we do it differently...just as the British did it differently than the Romans,etc. etc...and when our alternative measures are threatened, we move in militarily to ensure them, as in Panama. It is more surgical,and involves more economic control and the existence of military forces in the region, like Saudi Arabia, to exert our control, but the effect is the same...The Romans couldn't excercise control by having military outposts, airports, carrier fleets, and corporate control, they HAD to annex territory..For example, they had littel desire to have to occupy Britain, but wanted to control their mineral ( especially tin) trade, and prevent raids upon their Channel settlements, and their only alternative was to occupy it. America has other options, thanks to technology and a different world economy, but still excercises her control over areas it deems necessary to further it's interests...That is the same thing. 7) I don't agree that our society says that it is our place or priority to prevent crimes in other countries...I might agree that our country does, especially if that prevention happens to co-incide with our economic interests... 8) Salladin is only incomparable in so far as he didn't represent an expansionist nation. It would, I admit, be hard to give an example of an expansionist nation-state which wasn't expansionist. 9) The McVeigh comment was in response to the question of how can we not hold the governments responsible for the terrorist actions of it's inhabitants... 9) I would say that the Founding Father's objection with Britain, such as it was, was based on principle, as were it's declaration of independance, and constitution. The fact that there may or may not have been hypocrites back then is neither surprising nor relevant. 10) You didn't answer my question, and once again you are ordering me around...is this somehow symbolic of our differences? And, while it is too comlicated to deal with in one or two sentances, for the sake of brevity, I will agree that we are at an impasse if you base who does and does not have a right to have nuclear arms on what the U.S thinks... 11) I never suggested that the U.S would have automatically have tried to militarily conquer the world,although I did give examples ( Dulles, Patton) of powerful figures who suggested it, I was refuting the calim that the only thing which prevented exactly that happening was American benevolance...And, no, we were not on good terms with everyone...when do you think this whole middle East thing started? Upon the creation of Israel..and when do you think that happened? Shortly after WWII...there are other examples...but I am getting tired... 12) Again, I never suggested that we emulate Napoleon, I was refuting the claim that he was only opposed because he tried to annex the world. 13) We need only be consistent with world opinion if we claim to be democratic. The fact that most monarchies disagreed with a democratic government is irrelevent, as A) They are not systems based on popular support, global or otherwise and B) We have no way of knowing whether a nation's King deciding to oppose Napoleon is in any way representative of the will of his people. 14) If Saddam has indeed claimed we are at war, which is tantamamount to a declaration of war, then we are at war, and should deal with him accordingly...However, I have not heard him say that, nor would I hold his people responsible, but I would go after him. God, I am tired...Between you and treeman, I cannot sustain this verbal war of attrition, and can see more and more merit in haven's strategic withdrawel...I do think I have made my argument, though...
Treeman said: That is THE most moronic thing I have ever read. Thanks for the laugh. WTF has Australia ever needed America for? We have sided with you on every issue imaginable...99% of the issues being your agenda. As for Britain...the key difference between their Govt. and yours is that Blair has a brain.
oh, phew..this one requires a short and easy answer...Our primary external moral obligation is to not enforce our moral obligations on others. No solution is perfect, but this is, I feel, the one which holds the most true to our values...
