Who did we defend ourselves from in the 20th century contrary to global opinion...and were ight about? Was Vietnam, as it turns out, an imminent threat? Was the Domino Principle correct? Were their WMDs or 9-11 connections in Iraq? Look at our record when we go against the globe? And the Holocaust had absolutely nothing...repeat and underline, nothing to do with why we got into in WWII. Nothing.
One observation: England has a tradition of female leaders from the Monarchy where they were not elected.
I didn't mean to say that we went contrary to global opinion. Got confused there. And the reason the Holocaust had nothing to do with it is because we didn't know about it for a while. Once we knew about it, we started to take steps to correct it. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/holocaust/filmmore/reference/primary/#news 'Within days of receiving the Treasury Department's indictment of the Government's failure to rescue Jews from the Nazis, President Roosevelt established the War Refugee Board. Among other things it was charged with "the rescue, transportation, maintenance and relief of the victims of enemy oppression," and with "the establishment of havens of temporary refuge for such victims." Although the WRB was not adequately funded and some of its programs met with very limited success, board representatives managed to help save the lives of approximately 200,000 European Jews.' And don't you agree that we SHOULD stop situations such as the Holocaust? I don't believe in waiting for world opinion, because in such cases the world may have its own interests (ie like France balancing its own power against the US).
Agreed...although I don't see how a nation's road to improvement disavows that improvement. Whatever the historical motivation for their insight, they are still ahead of us in this respect.
1) Cool. 2) Yeah, but that was already after Germany had declared war against us, with sort of puts a pin into the whole " We did it for the Holocaust' balloon, in that A) We didn't do it, they did..and B) We weren't in favor of doing it at all until they did. You can argue that we might have gotten involved if we had known the extent of the Holocaust...maybe. But remember we knew some things about it...Hitler trued to get rid of the 'Jewish problem' at first by shipping them off...and we turned them down and sent them back to a country that we knew was so against them they were shipping them out en masse. So just how involved we'd have gotten before the fact, and just how much knowledge we'd have needed to get involved is a debatable point. 3) I believe we should try and push the world to get involved in situations of genocide, but don't agree that we should not wait for it's opinion to come around. It is much easier for one nation, even if it's ours, to be fooled by acting on it's own interests, as you say France does, than it is for most of the world to do likewise...and that was the initial point of global will as a determinant. Why are people so convinced that Russia had ulterior motives...and France....and Germany...etc. but don't address that, logically, it's much more likely that a few nations did than to argue that a majority did? What was Canada's ulterior motive? Or any other of the countless nations which argued against our actions, including most of Iraq's naeighbours who sided with us in Gulf War one, and stood to lose the most if they were wrong?
Fair enough, but if you look back at FDR's speeches, they were often littered with reference to freedom, relgious liberty, and human dignity. FDR plainly saw Germany as a threat to liberty in Europe and around the world. Anyways, what are we talking about again? We've gotten a little off- topic...
Oh, I have no doubt that, at a certain point, FDR wanted to get involved, but we didn't agree...another instancw where we disagreed with global opinion, which was begging us to get involved. But FDR's comments, if you read his memoranda, his secratary's notes, etc. was not about the Jewish issue so much as about 'liberty' etc. on a national scale..ie he saw Hitler's exporting his theories by force as being a contravention of liberty...which, ironically, is on point.
Sure, and you're as unpredictable as Glynch. No, its not. You claim that women have been the majority for the past 70 years is wrong. Straight up incorrect. And your claim in your initial posts that they were is both erroneous and misleading. No where do I deny the effects of sexism in the past, so please spare me the 'splitting hairs' bit. You made a claim that was false. Period. That hurts not only your credibility but should enlighten some readers that your carefully crafted rhetoric is precisely that, carefully crafted to mislead and exaggerate. This is the 'We cannot stop genocide because a woman hasn't been President' part.' I think that speaks volumes and that the readers should have a better idea of the implications of your philosophic ramblings from it. Again your writing is so misleading. The Bosnian and Kosovo interventions were both done outside 'world opinion.' So it would seem that your preported '50 yrs of global will' is not quite an accurate picture. In addition, I have also pointed out that the 'Coalition of the Willing' was over 50 countries, and JUST AS LEGITIMATE as the PG War 1 coalition. Which you've conceeded. That's trouble for you since the PGW1 meets your sacrosanct standard of 'global will.' And the first country to outlaw slavery was going against 'global will.' As was the first to do many things. I would imagine it would be hard to justify spreading a totalitarian system to another country and taking the moral high ground. Nice try. Aside from the fact that neither of those two countries would intervene and then ever get out. Nope. We saw what happens when you combine military might with totalitarianism. And we continued to see it in the Cold War. No one has ever proposed that the UN was the only legitimate actor. That simply is MacBeth again stretching the truth. There are countless other organizations whose mere existence disproves his assertion. If the UN is the only legitimate actor then why does NATO exist? ASEAN? The OAS? Why is the EU trying to create a military force? They exist because there are instances outside the ability of one organization to react and control. That is WHY there are these other organizations. A good example is Bosnia. The UN would not act to stop genocide. In MacBeth's view it is immoral and illogical for the US to stop the genocide because: it was outside his concept of 'global will' as embodied by the UN, the US is not 'free' at home as exemplified by the fact we have not had a woman president, and of course we have committed genocide against the Native Americans - so 'who are we' to tell someone not to commit genocide? My view is different. Genocide should not be allowed if we have the power to prevent it. Having been immoral in the past does not negate the morality of a current action. My view is outside his framework. So it should be easy for the readers to make up their mind. Do you stand aside and allow genocide because the reasons MacBeth has enumerated, or do you stop it? I think it is an easy decision. Further, your concept of 'global will' just flawed. Why would MORE people saying the same thing matter if what they are saying is WRONG? 'Global Will' did not stop genocide in Bosnia, the US and UK did. I believe most people will conclude that 'global will' was wrong and we were right. Can't imagine how you could agree with the PGW1 when we hadn't had a woman President. Oops. If you don't think we have to have no problems at home or in our history why do you consistently reference the Native American genocide? Or why did you even start this thread? And again you just set up a criteria for action that has practical implications that you brush off. Should we roll back all nuclear non-proliferation efforts? Let anyone have nukes because we used one? Let genocide happen because we committed it? According to you we should. I think almost everyone will disagree with you. Nope. I certainly am an adocate for involved US foreign policy. It is simply incorrect to say that I have not been critical of US foreign or domestic policy, or its leadership. Look it up. I don't just think this is an easy decision for me. Nothing in MacBeth's response denies my conclusions about the implications of his philosophy. If you want loose nukes because we bombed Hiroshima, and you want genocide unopposed because we committed genocide against the Native Americans, then I guess we'll just have to disagree.
Alright, MacBeth is currently being tied up with Mr. Clutch and HayesStreet. Everybody else can take a coffee break now.
Let me slip this in... Russia had a woman leader before 1900...and granted the vote to women before the US did. I suppose Russia was truly a nation of freedom??? (McB -- I'm not defending the US bias against women or anyother groups -- just nibbling away at your 'freedom' link). Cheers. Enjoy your weekend. So...You taking the 4th of July off, or Canada Day...or the whole dang week?
1) Really? I'm predictable? Funny...in the past few weeks among the most common comments about my positions has been other posters' surpise at my positions...And, like I Said, I am not consistenyl for or against any particular party position...I am neither liberal nor conservative...etc. I have stated in here times in my liefe when I thought we did the right thing by getting militarily involved...can you say the opposite? 2) Re-read my last post.... 3) Re-read my last post. You keep saying that I'm saying 'We can't stop genocide because we haven't had a woman President...and that is not what I've said...I have said that when we defy the opinion of the world, and claim moral superiority while so doing, we had better have a superior moral record to those we are telling to get the hell out of our way...and we don't. When we have gone against global opinion in the past, we have almost always turned out to be wrong, with regards to social and diplomatic issues. But, more than that, we need to remember those times, not just because we were wrong, but because, like now, we assumed we were right and everyone else was wrong... 4) How the hell do argue that Gulf War II is just as legitimate as Gulf War One?...the first had UN support, the later did not...the first was supported by most of the world, the second was opposed...the first was even popular in the Middle East itself, the latter was not...I don't get your argument here...And, yeah...if we assume we are RIGHT, and everyone else is WRONG, then we'll probably agree with ourselves...we always do... 5) 'Spreading a totalitarian system'...lol...So, yeah, when we start with the premise that our side is right, and that we can therefore do what we want, while the other side is wrong, so whatever thet do is also wrong, it can be argued that, in the end, we are right, and always will be. 6) Combined military might and totalitarianism? That's what we learned? Hmmm...so, define totalitarianism, as it applies to foreign policy, and doesn't fit with what we've done here in Iraq...or in Vietnam...or South America...etc...I know, what we did was regreattable, but better than the alternative, from our POV, so it doesn't count...Putting down popular political movements, supporting death squads, assassinating leaders...it was all ok because the other guy was a totalitarianist, and people only supported his side because they were misguided... 7) The Un had priority in situations , like this one, of international conflict. NATO, etc. were never set up as anything but defense allignments for certain areas/affiliations, and really had nothing to do with hat we're discussing here, nor does the EU's proposed military arm. Those are geo-specific defense arms, not representations of global justice and reasoning...The UN and World Court were the only international arbitration bodies with authority...and we now ignore them both. 8) Oops? HS, you're really reaching here..I said why our moral record is an issue here whereas in Gulf War I it wasn't...we weren't going against global opinion based on our own moral superiority the first time, but were representative of a global reaction to a clearly aggressive act. Worlds apart...and like i said, that was the reason I supported one while not supporting another...I don't just buy American. I know, I know...you don't either. there are many examples where we werw militarily aggressive and in the wrong, in your view....right? 9) Seriously...where have you thought that we held ourselves to be above others, acted on it, and been wrong...at the time? I mean it...I will be surprised and impressed if you have been as objective as you claim, but I can't look it up as easily as you could tell me. 10 ) I agree...we are probably not going to find common ground on this...you see my stance as an ivory tower position without practical legs to stand on, and a reflection of an impossible moral standard which leads to a Hamlet complex...I see yours as representative of an undeserved sense of American superiority and entitlement, and a belief that we can do what we want because we think we're right. I doubt either of us will alter our perspective on the other...
1) Freedom comes in many forms...I would say that in that respect Russia was more 'free' than us...but I still wouldn't give them the authority to site that superiority as a means of justifying invading another nation when the world says not to. 2) I'll take any holiday I can get...
I don't track down everyone of your posts like its the NY Times. I find it hard to believe that you'd contend that you don't consistenly bash either the US or its policies. The only two examples you list I remember are passing mentions of WWII ( which you fill with a gazillion caveats) and PGW1 (which you don't even consider a US action). Its really annoying for someone to assume I don't read your posts. It IS what you are saying. Bosnia. The Russians threatened to veto UN action because of their historical ties to Serbia. Exactly as France threatened to veto UN action on Iraq. There was not a mandate of 'global will,' which you define so narrowly as a UN endorsed action, for intervention to stop genocide. The US and UK acted anyway, despite this. According to your criteria for action, we cannot act without 'global will' since we don't have a 'superior moral record.' I disagree. Read my last post. A past morally incorrect decision has nothing to do with whether or not to take a moral action in the present or future. The US made the right decision to act to stop genocide. You do not think so and that is OK. But I am not writing to YOU. I am writing to those who read your seemingly sensible criteria and THINK it is a good guideline. I think it is flawed, as Bosnia points out. Simple. The coalitions were of relatively the same number of nations. I recognize that there can be legitimacy of action outside the UN, as Bosnia and Kosovo prove. I realize that depending on ONLY UN action is flawed, as Rwanda and Somalia and Bosnia and Kosovo prove. I recognize that 50 nations is not insignificant, and that Entrea's vote is no more insignificant that France's. I recognize that coalition members were bought in PGW1 just as they were seeking favor in PGW2 (Egyptian debt was forgiven for instance). PGW1 was not popular among populations, only among governments, just as 50 governments joined the coalition this time. We can start with the premise that China and Soviet systems were wrong, bad, evil, or whatever other label in that vein you'd like to use, yes. We can add to that premise that the US system, while far from infalible, is a superior system, yes. If you'd like to argue those premises, then be my guest as you're laughed off the board. I know it may stun you to think the US system IS actually superior to some others, I'm sure you can run to better ones to defend that the USSR and PRC, lol. Stick to Iceland. Well, we're not annexing Iraq, are we? Nor are we retaining control of their country, any more than you could claim the Marshall Plan was totalitarian, and removing Nazis from West German government was totalitarian, lol. Which reminds me that you have, in fact, been boohooing that Bath Party officials are being removed. We can reargue the Cold War all you want, but it doesn't seem to go anywhere. Even you have admitted that it is true that the US was the better alternative of the two. Are you smoking crack? Have you read anything about NATO in the last 15 years? Who exactly is NATO protecting in a defensive arrangement these days? It was set up to defend against the Soviet Union, which has been gone a decade. The entire body of discussion, both within NATO and in the literature is about what NEW mission NATO must focus on to be relevant in the post Cold War world. It and other security organizations around the world are the arena most likely to diffuse a conflict, not the UN. Where was the UN in Bosnia, or Rwanda? Who is more likely to diffuse the conflict between China and Vietnam/Philippines/Taiwan/Indonesia about the Spratly Islands, the UN or ASEAN? Why is everyone clamoring for the US to settle the conflict in Korea, instead of the UN? Why is everyone saying the US should lead the Arab-Isreali peace movement instead of the UN? Because the UN has limited functionality, and the US does not. Still not sure why a 50 country coalition is illegitimate. Regardless, even if you think its not, our current situation is the same as in Bosnia. Then there was no mandate and now you contend there is not one. Democracy is preferrable to a totalitarian apparatus (Saddam). You stand back and say, 'but the rest of the world says its not that bad.' I, however, believe that rather than blindly following the crowd, we should make our own assessment. Noone says Saddam was desireable. So what's the debate about whether our system is superior. I think its ludicrous to contend they were better off under Saddam. If you want to shout that we must be wrong, that Saddam was really good for Iraqis, be my guest. Lots o places. That's why many on the board have said they thought I was libertarian. I've been critical of our leadership ('Bush is stupid' counts, right?), our policies (WOD sucks, Global Warming is true so we should be acting, we should go alternative so we don't have to intervene in the ME), and our past actions (supporting the Shah/Batista/Somoza was probably less efficient than embracing the populations). And I have also defended those who radically changed some of those policies, like Carter. Fair enough? Probably not. But I'm not really trying to convince you anymore. People should know what they're buying before they repeat it to someone else. I respond to your posts because I see others defending the US and doing it poorly, and I think that's predominantly because of the way you set up your arguments and avoid the implications.
