27-04-2003 23:31									#61
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by GP That is probably a more reasonable argument. I would only add that the very real threat of force was needed to get the inspections going. And that the French/German enthusiasm for the inspections seemed more to be as a means of stopping US going to war than out of interest in constraining Saddam.

I agree with you. The threat of force was needed. And don't think that I am on the side of the French or Germans. They were certainly mostly concerned with their own interests. It was just a coincidence that their plan happened to make the most sense. If anything, I'm more upset that Bush couldn't get the UN behind him. Eventually, some sort of military action was necessary. I just wanted it at the right time with the rest of the world taking on more of the cost. Now, the US is stuck with the bill.

	27-04-2003 23:53									#62
	Re: Why we SHOULD have invaded Iraq Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by skywalker The reasons for going into Iraq were pretty self-evident. We (America) are capable of going in there and removing an oppressive totalitarian (redundant?) regime that had shown a tendancy to declare war on its neighbors. Replacing this regime with a liberal democratic (as in, not the sort of democracy that existed in 1900) government can do nothing but good for the people of Iraq and the stability of the region. We are capable of doing a good thing, and therefore it is not our right, but our RESPONISIBILITY to do the right thing. Now, if we just suck Iraq dry of oil, or establish an equally oppressive regime that's friendly to us, then we aren't doing a good thing, and so the rule holds.

A couple of issue with this:

One: we can't install liberal democracy. A government installed is by definition not a liberal democracy. We can lay the foundations for it, which takes time.

Two: What is the right thing? If you say: removing a dictatorisl gov. is the right thing, i agree. But how? Does the US have the power in and of itself to classify and then change reigmes? What gives us that authority?
Moe importantly, what gives the executive branch of a dmoecratic state that legitimacy? What if the people of said country don't want to bear the long-term costs of this policy? And do other states have the same right to classify the enemy, the evil, and destroy it?

quote: Some may say, however, that we're only doing it in places that make our president look good [to the American people], so he's really a hypocrite. I say, SO WHAT?! If he's doing something good, why stop him? The only possible problem there is that he should be doing MORE of it - that is, overthrowing regimes in other countries too. In fact, that's what I think - we should do that to the maximum of our ability.

And what is our ability to do so? Overthrowing regimes is the easy part. As I stated, we can't install democracy, we cna only lay foundations, and that takes time.

I can;t argue that basic moral ligoc here, as I agree with it. But I do think the great, fatal flaw in this lies with the desire of the people, the foundation upon which your moral call toa ction lies, this being a dmocracy, does not share it one bit. It is easy to talk this way, it is easy to say: hey! Lets just go for it, but going for it has costs, great costs that the people might be unwilling to bear. And then there is an added danger: what if you were wrong?

I think Russia in 1917 is a great example. Why did the provisional goevrnemnt of Kerresnky stay in the war? He had plenty of both moral and practical reasons for why Russia should keep in the fight against Germany. But in the end this doomed his government and allowed the Bolsheviks to come to power. And what about the Bolsheviks? Did they knowingly want a terible dictatorship in Russia? were they nothing but greedy egotists seeking to enslave? Or where they driven moralist of your vain, seeking to maximize good and bring liberty tot he world?

You say this Skywalker, and my question to you is: how much will YOU as an individual, be willing to give to this endeavor? Would you support tax increases (or keeping tex rates as are) to pay for the susbtantial cost the enterprise you support costs? Would you think of, after your education is over, seeking positions overseas to actively particiapet in what you call "our responsibility"
If not, then ho can you expect others to bear a burden yuo won;t? And if so, how do you act at a time when most wouldn't follow your lead?

	28-04-2003 00:00									#63
	Tired of ads?

Yup. I want to do ROTC, and be career military.

My posting's probably going to be somewhere behind the front lines, unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it ). I'd be a LOT more useful in the R&D sorta stuff than at the front lines.

Last edited by Kuciwalker on 28-04-2003 at 00:17

	28-04-2003 00:12									#64
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Sava There were three possible solutions to the problem of Iraq: Do nothing (bad) Stall and slowly choke Saddam (the best solution) Play cowboy and invade (get's rid of Saddam, but creates bigger problems) What's done is done. But the US continues to screw the pooch. Hopefully things will still be managable in 2004. Then America can hang a "Under New Management" sign on the door and begin to fix the problems Dubya has created.

	28-04-2003 00:14									#65
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by skywalker Yup. I want to do ROTC, and be career military. My posting's probably going to be somewhere behind the front lines, unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it :evil. I'd be a LOT more useful in the R&D sorta stuff than at the front lines.

And how will beign in the military make you worthwhile to install the basic foundations of dmeocracy? Fine, yuo will be able to "kill the bad guys", but what about creating a new judicial system? Who does that, and who would military training make you capable at all of doing so?

The great part of what you want to do is not military, never will be (for if it has to be, then obviously we have failed)

	28-04-2003 00:16									#66
	Suffering from ads?

You twisted an answer to a question as to my dedication into some sort of perverted proof of my inability. I never claimed it qualified me to lecture you on morals. It's proof that I BELIEVE the morals. You're mudslinging.

	28-04-2003 00:22									#67
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Mudsligging? My oh me, we are taking a a cue from fez, aren'we?

Its nice to see you want to dedicate your life to serving your country..but you advocate a plan of action that calls for an immese effort from the whole society. You didn't fully answer my question, which was:

quote: And if so, how do you act at a time when most wouldn't follow your lead?

Do you believe the average American wants to partake in some mission to change the world? And if not, then how could such a mission suceed? You see Skywalker, you (or any individual) is simply not enough. The question is, is the NATION ready to do so? That is the question that matters.

	28-04-2003 00:26									#68
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Gepap

One of the biggest problems with spreading Democracy to the Middle East is their culture. For over a thousand years these people have lived under Theocratic and Authoritarian rule. You can't expect to install a Western Democracy in a country where the people don't want it. Democracy is something the people have to decide they want. My avatar is a perfect example of this. And this is why deposing Saddam in this way was a bad idea.

I see only two possibilities at this point.
A US puppet regime (bad idea)
An Islamic government (bad idea)

If you let the people decide, they will choose Islam.

The best solution would be to inspire tolerant Democratic elements in the region, but this will take time. And that's why the whole Cowboy strategy was bad.

Another mistake that America is making is that they are not taking history into account. Ever since the crusades, western powers have invaded the Middle East. They don't make the distinction between the freedom loving Americans and the Theocratic Crusaders of the Middle Ages. And Mr. Bush, pro-war people, and just about everybody else in America is ignorant to this fact. And this point is extremely relevant to most aspects of American foreign policy. You can't act like a cowboy. And you certainly can't treat Korea the same way. The Koreans also have a history of fighting against invading foreign powers. Why do you think they would seee the US any different than the Mongols or Imperial Japanese. You and I might know better, but they don't. And we need a foreign policy that is best suited to these facts,

	28-04-2003 00:39									#69
	Support Apolyton

this entire reason of deposing saddam for human rights violations is valid, but it only holds water because
a) saddam is a nasty mothafvcker
b) saddam is (in)famous/notorious
c) saddam is relatively easy to take care of

mugabe is black and not very famous.
kim jong il isn't easy to off.
shevardnadze who?
gaddafi and khatami are sooo 1980s.
hu jintao isn't a nasty motherfvcker.
castro is more funny than anything else.
and chirac is far too easy to take care of.

	28-04-2003 00:41									#70
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I think that we should stay in there for a LONG time, like we did in Japan. With patience it will work.

GePap - sorry, I didn't see the question. I still don't quite understand it. If you mean, how would I act if America wouldn't follow me, then, well, I'd try to convince people to my side, but if they aren't convinced, well, it won't happen. I'm not going to go on some mad crusade - because it ISN'T part of what I've been advocating in this thread. On my own, I do not have the capability to do this, therefore it is not my responsibility to do it alone.

If you meant, what would you do if the Iraqis didn't want me, I'd stay in there a long time, leave it under a military governor, basically repeat what we did in Germany and Japan after WWII. It seems to have worked, so I think it's the best approach.

	28-04-2003 00:42									#71
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

q cubed - lol at Chirac

	28-04-2003 00:46									#72
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: An Islamic government

I don't see why this should be a bad idea. A democratic Goverment in the middle east has to develop from an islamic goverment. I can see no other way.

Anyway, the west is not a good example. Most countries in the West (especially the US) are pretty "christian". They put weird crosses on their flags or have things like school-prayer. I don't see, how someone from the west can explain someone from the east, when the west does it, it' s ok, when the east does it, it's not.

And no Iran-Bashing. Iran has democratic flower that blossoms. Coming from an Islamic Goverment. We would be better off to support Islamic-Democracy, than to push them into Islamic-Despotism.

	28-04-2003 00:47									#73
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

The problem with an Islamic government is because it would enforce Islam AS the law. At least in the West the bible isn't the code of laws.

	28-04-2003 00:55									#74
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I have a question about the whole "Crusade For Democracy" idea. That is, taking out brutal dictators worldwide, and 'installing' liberal democracies. Where does it stop?

I certainly wouldn't shed a tear if the Yanks went into Zimbabwe tomorrow, but at what point does a 'brutal dictator' become a 'benign dictator'? Or, rather, how do you deal with dictators who will fight back a little harder than Saddam?

Say, the New American Century folks get their way, for the most part: That means "regime change" in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Libya... maybe Zimbabwe, if they feel like it. Then you come to North Korea. Defuse that, and who's the biggest, baddest bastard in town? China (heck, they're arguably the FIRST America should have gone after, if we're speaking from a purely humanitarian standpoint). And then what? Declare war on China?

No, the Americans would never do that. So does it just end, there? You spend a good number of years in near-continuous war, liberating peoples after peoples... and then just stop, because there's nowhere left to liberate?

Or do you move on to the socialist or otherwise unfavourable democracies? I just think the massive militarisation of American culture (even more so than now) that would be needed for such a full-scale campaign would require fundamental changes in gov't and society, which would be hard to just 'switch off' once the 'last' despot worth caring about is deposed.

But I'm just thinking out loud (?) here.

	28-04-2003 01:02									#75
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: I certainly wouldn't shed a tear if the Yanks went into Zimbabwe tomorrow, but at what point does a 'brutal dictator' become a 'benign dictator'?

I assume you're talking about a military governor. Well, it becomes a "benign dictator" when it is subject to the will of a democratic regime and is working for the betterment of the country of which it is a dictator.

quote: Say, the New American Century folks get their way, for the most part: That means "regime change" in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Libya... maybe Zimbabwe, if they feel like it. Then you come to North Korea. Defuse that, and who's the biggest, baddest bastard in town? China (heck, they're arguably the FIRST America should have gone after, if we're speaking from a purely humanitarian standpoint). And then what? Declare war on China?

The second requirement for something being your responsibility is that you are CAPABLE of it. Personally, I question our ability to reform China (we simply don't have enough people), especially after many other conflicts.

quote: Or do you move on to the socialist or otherwise unfavourable democracies? I just think the massive militarisation of American culture (even more so than now) that would be needed for such a full-scale campaign would require fundamental changes in gov't and society, which would be hard to just 'switch off' once the 'last' despot worth caring about is deposed.

No, because politics is 2-dimensional - there's the economic axis, conservative-liberal, and the government power axis, anarchist-authoritarian. The test as to whether a government should be overthrows is what is its position on the government power axis, not the economic.

	28-04-2003 01:09									#76
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: I assume you're talking about a military governor. Well, it becomes a "benign dictator" when it is subject to the will of a democratic regime and is working for the betterment of the country of which it is a dictator.

What I mean is... Take Turkmenbashi. He's got nowhere near the deathcount of a Saddam or a Pinochet, but he rules the country at his whim, and he does such ca-ca-ca-razy things as renaming months and days after himself.

Will he be overthrown under the new world order?

quote: No, because politics is 2-dimensional - there's the economic axis, conservative-liberal, and the government power axis, anarchist-authoritarian. The test as to whether a government should be overthrows is what is its position on the government power axis, not the economic.

But once the dictators are 'all gone', who will become the new enemy? In a military-industrial complex, there must always be an enemy. The socialists and unfavourable democracies will fill the void.

	28-04-2003 01:13									#77
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

1) Yes, he should be. Doesn't mean he should be FIRST.

2) That's a fallacy - not because it's necessarily wrong, though. You're arguing that we shouldn't do the right thing now because it may lead to us doing the wrong thing later. The alternative, however, is to do the wrong thing now. Also, if we have the self-control to do so, we CAN avoid doing the wrong thing later.

	28-04-2003 01:16									#78
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by skywalker Yup. I want to do ROTC, and be career military. My posting's probably going to be somewhere behind the front lines, unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it ). I'd be a LOT more useful in the R&D sorta stuff than at the front lines.

They need smart guys in the field also. Check out the navy nuke program.

	28-04-2003 01:18									#79
	Increase Your PM Length

You want me near NUKES?! Are you INSANE?! My friends were horrified when I *jokingly* told them I want to major in nuclear physics

	28-04-2003 01:19									#80
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: 2) That's a fallacy - not because it's necessarily wrong, though. You're arguing that we shouldn't do the right thing now because it may lead to us doing the wrong thing later. The alternative, however, is to do the wrong thing now. Also, if we have the self-control to do so, we CAN avoid doing the wrong thing later.

I guess it all depends on one's definition of wrong and right. At this point, I would argue that the 'right' move for America would be to free itself from the military-industrial complex. But that's not going to happen, so I'd just as soon see them create the least amount of death possible.

	28-04-2003 01:20									#81
	Remove this text

Exactly. We're preventing deaths by going into Iraq. How many has Hussein killed? How many have we? I'll bet those numbers will be VERY different.

	28-04-2003 01:26									#82
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Exactly. We're preventing deaths by going into Iraq. How many has Hussein killed? How many have we? I'll bet those numbers will be VERY different.

Taking out one tin-pot dictator and waging a world campaign against every single unfavourable despot are two different beasts. The latter will require the American forces to thin themselves out across the globe, making each nation they conquer less and less secure, not to mention the homeland.

Combine that with the fact that most of the people in these nations won't be too happy about an American invasion (they may want democracy, but most aren't too fond of American-installed democracy), and even one death (and I'm talking U.S. Armed Forces personnel, here, too) seems unjustifiable.

	28-04-2003 01:28									#83
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Remember the capability thing? If we can't do it, then it isn't our responsibility. We should do AS MUCH AS WE CAN, no more. Any more would jeopardize what we can do.

	28-04-2003 01:30									#84
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by skywalker You want me near NUKES?! Are you INSANE?! My friends were horrified when I *jokingly* told them I want to major in nuclear physics

The smarts are for the plant. Not the bombs. For the bombs, you just need high integrity.

	28-04-2003 01:33									#85
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by GePap And how will beign in the military make you worthwhile to install the basic foundations of dmeocracy? Fine, yuo will be able to "kill the bad guys", but what about creating a new judicial system? Who does that, and who would military training make you capable at all of doing so? The great part of what you want to do is not military, never will be (for if it has to be, then obviously we have failed)

Don't listen to the pacifist. Serving in the military is a noble calling. He just wants to make it seem less noble to make himself feel better.

	28-04-2003 01:36									#86
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

GP - I listen to everyone, evaluate their arguments logically, and accept them or reject them based on whether or not they hold. That particular comment I rejected because it was irrelevent.

	28-04-2003 01:47									#87
	Suffering from ads?

However, GePap has a point. if you want to have maximal efficiency in helping other people, the military sin't the best way, far from it.

Working in NGOs actually devoted in reconstruction (the setting up of a sanitation network, of educational material, of a telecommunication network), will bring much more good than the army will ever do.
Because despite all the nice extras, the army's job is ultimately to kill its enemies. Sure, the soliders sometimes help, sometimes keep the order, sometimes protect a humanitarian convoy. But it isn't the core of their job. Their job is sometimes necessary, but a soldier more often brings and experiences pain and despair the the opposite.

Besides, the army is a tool in the hands of the politicians, and its interventions can be ill-advised, and make people suffer for the sake of some powerful people's greed.

A military carreer is far from being the best way to look if you intend to help your fellow man.

	28-04-2003 02:02									#88
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by skywalker Exactly. We're preventing deaths by going into Iraq. How many has Hussein killed? How many have we? I'll bet those numbers will be VERY different.

If things were just a question of numbers, why go into Iraq? More human beings have died in the last 5 years in Central Africa than in all the wars in the ME and all the repression there two in 50 years.

The greater problem is that even most Americans do not think we have the legitimacy to change the world: they are happy to agree to bomb any Arab or Muslim states, cause hey, they are all terrorists! And they are glad to include NK cause they make good Bond enemies, but otherwise, they don;t crae to go into the world: they can barely place it on a map, far less understand that, well, you know, things are complicated. America is usttely unwilling to do what it takes to be an empire: obviosuly then, it would make sense to try to make this a world crusade and not a one state one, but the fact is that for the most part, this admin. has done about eberything you could do to convince the world they don't really give a damn about democracy world wide, since they decide to act by fiat when they care to.

quote: Don't listen to the pacifist. Serving in the military is a noble calling. He just wants to make it seem less noble to make himself feel better.

Brilliant way to utterly ignore the comment and make completeyl incorrect characterizations of a person! Wow, GP, been at it long?

	28-04-2003 02:05									#89
	Suffering from ads?

Spiffor - I personally thing that quality of life comes second to political freedom.

GePap - I wasn't saying we should go into Iraq FIRST - I said we should go into Iraq. I also didn't make preservation of life the sole criterion for intervention; there are also capability and, importantly, preservation of liberty. Both elements need to be preserved; neither is worth anything without the other.

	28-04-2003 02:10									#90
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: GePap - I wasn't saying we should go into Iraq FIRST - I said we should go into Iraq. I also didn't make preservation of life the sole criterion for intervention; there are also capability and, importantly, preservation of liberty. Both elements need to be preserved; neither is worth anything without the other.

I am not disagreeing with you that in theory it is just for the Us to remove dictators: my problem lies with the how's of such an implementation, and I owrry that a half-assed attempt at crusading is worse than none. Pluse, at the same time we act militarilly against Iraq, we don't take the myriads of much less radical but nonetheless important measures we could take to foster democracy everywhere.