Somehow I knew I left myself open for that! Well put even if I disagree with your basic position.Originally Posted by elthrasher
Somehow I knew I left myself open for that! Well put even if I disagree with your basic position.
Once again I have to say this is exactly right. I've heard too many people say that the evidence for/against Iraqi WMDs was absolutely obvious, clear, and beyond debate. My memory is different, and your quotes verify what I recall in broad terms, namely, that the evidence was ambiguous at best. And to me that's what made all the difference: if this guy Hussein isn't being upfront even just 5 or 10%, then we can't say for sure that he's abiding by the ceasefire until he complys more fully.
Once again it's the Appeal to Ignorance fallacy: "we didn't find WMD or WMD research evidence given 90% inspection compliance, but we know they didn't have anything like that hidden away very carefully." This fallacy gets repeated quite a bit...
Last edited by Zefelius; 11-02-2011 at 01:35 AM.
Well, if you isolate my quote from the rest of my arguments, you're exactly right: it's absurd to think that deception is just cause for war. If you're debating me, however, and not a complete moron, then hopefully you don't think that's my basic position. My view is that continued diplomatic deception in the context of ceasefire requirements may in fact warrant military enforcement of those conditions. Hussein gave up any rights he had to normal diplomacy after he invaded Kuwait: once he lost the war he was obliged to abide by conditions of peace unfavorable to an otherwise sovereign nation.
Anytime we can take out a tyrant it's a good thing. I'd rather try than not try... even given the drawbacks.
Im ok with tyrants existing, it might be the lesser of two evils. But I think there should be some limit, that that limit should be codified in international law and that it should enforced where required. And that that might mean invading a country or taking other action.
And it frustrates me that our international law might be completely impotent in the face of genocide or whatever.
heh - I blame you zef and thrasher on behalf of your countries, SVPM and I are completely innocent
Yup, go ahead and blame us!!heh - I blame you zef and thrasher on behalf of your countries, SVPM and I are completely innocent
On this score, however, I don't mind being a hypocrite. It's an old argument to say that countries like America are ridiculously arrogant and hypocritical to punish others for desiring the very weapons we possess. But if I lived in a nice country like Germany or New Zealand I would much rather have WMDs in the hands of the Americans than, say, the North Koreans, Hussein's previous regime, Iran, or even Greenland.
I guess I'm okay with tyrants as well if there's simply nothing we can do about it. For example, I'd love to take out the North Korean regime. Syria as well. But right now we don't have the energy, resources, or will for it. The Chinese would protect North Korea for example, and there's simply no way America is going down that path of mass warfare.
I hear the greek PM is saying the bail out should go to a referendum.
Possibly being about him being tired of other politicians playing the anti bailout game whilst secretly hoping the bailout proceeds and trying to call their bluff.
Or maybe he wants to just not be the bad guy anymore.
Or maybe he had a few shorts on some shares that he wanted to unwind
I used to work in a oligopoly commodity industry, and the firm did indeed engage in a sort of anti competitive price manipulation, but broardly speaking there was inflence from supply, demand and substitutes. Room for that and for us to make a fat profit every year. The supply and demand swings were quite large, if our profits had been that big we would soon have owned the planet.
what drawbacks do you mean? killing thousands of people, destroying the lives of millions? and what have you accomplished? ridding them of a tyrant? the iraqis and other arabs now hate the US more than ever. things like that can only be done by themselves as we have seen during the latest arab uprisings. have you rid the US of a tyrant? bravo, the greatest threat that emanated from him for the US was probably that he didn't want to comply with its oil interests. you can only call this "drawbacks" because you are not an iraqi or an US soldier in iraq. if you were i think you would think twice if that dubious goal of the war is really worth it.
and even if taking out a tyrant was worth it, then it should be about time for the US to invade every second sub-saharan african country, north korea, perhaps china, other eastern and southern asian states, belarus, perhaps russia, iran, and saudi arabia.
can't blame me. germany isn't allowed to own WMDsheh - I blame you zef and thrasher on behalf of your countries, SVPM and I are completely innocent
No, blame Zef because he thought it was a good idea. I did everything in my limited power to prevent the war.heh - I blame you zef and thrasher on behalf of your countries, SVPM and I are completely innocent
Me too, but since I probably have french and native blood more then english it compensates.can't blame me. germany isn't allowed to own WMDs
I thought you were more pragmatic than that. Weighting the pros and cons... It's a pretty absolute statement.
The drawbacks as Showtek stated are absolutly huge!!! Iraq was one or the country that had the most stability, economy, health care system, education system (where women were allowed). Yes, it was a tyran taht executed lots of ennemy and declared war on Koweit, but he never did suffered his people has much as the invasion will have in the long term by far. I tihnk it will take years and maybe decades before the country reach a stabikity close to what it was.
as much as i am informed, france too has WMDs
i forget to mention that, even from an egoistic american perspective, the iraq war meant huge losses as it's at least one of the major components of the american debt if i'm not misinformed.
to be fair, hussein was a terrible tyrant who used chemical weapons against his own people during the iraq-iran war. people still births and handicaps because of it. and i'm not sure if iraq was actually comparably well off before the american invasion either. iraq had been a miserable tyranny under hussein.Iraq was one or the country that had the most stability, economy, health care system, education system (where women were allowed). Yes, it was a tyran taht executed lots of ennemy and declared war on Koweit, but he never did suffered his people has much as the invasion will have in the long term by far.
Maybe I was presenting my point more in a way then I really thought reality to be, to advance my point...
We have to compare his regime to the rest of the region. Like I said he executed or butchered his ennemies (political opponent). He was a tyran, but there is/was lots of tyran in the region and all of them has done atrocity or have been brutal towards there population. Does it excuses the action of Saddam no, but it's worth it to put it in context to be able to compare what would be the results of the invasion. Probably a new tyran or other problems has we see with Karzaï in Afghanistan.
Whilst he chemical weaponed some people and executed others these are just specific incidences in scenarios where (for the most part) people knowingly took him on..
For your average Joe who kept his head down regarding politics or anything like that, saddam iraq was probably an ok place to live.. suddenly became a terrible place for the duration of the war and now a generally unsafe place post war.
thrasher, according to this article a military intervention in iran by the west led by the US generally isn't considered unlikely. now it even seems that the possibility of such a war is an obvious one. i haven't seen it being presented as such before. and this comes from a respected centre-left journal, the guardian.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...attack-nuclear
of course, i don't have to speak about israel.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...-fires-missile
Fair enough. As I've mentioned before in this thread, when these kinds of debates come up, I've rarely been pro-invasion 100%. I do weigh the pros and cons as you rightly recommend, and in my calculations I thought it was more worth the effort than not: but I agree with many here that it hasn't been all rainbows and sunshine!
In the end it seems worth it to give it a shot, even considering the casualities, because in the long run there's more opportunity for progress than if we didn't fight back against dictators whenever possible. In some cases, of course, we don't have the means for overthrowing them---and in those cases I think we have to patiently bide our time and use other modes of pressure, as with economics and diplomacy.
I'll take some of the blame. For me this is a tough call, and I landed on a position that many good, well-intended people won't like. For you it is not a tough call at all, it seems, and therefore I'm even more blameworthy than I myself would admit.
1) Casualities of war can be justified if the end of war is worthwhile. You don't think it was, but I do. Therefore for this point of yours to hit its target (i.e., my position), you of course have to win the debate on the end of this particular war. In your mind I'm sure you think you've already won this debate, and in my mind I don't think so. But in any case, this point is subordinate to other lines of thought.
2) They may hate us, but my consequentialism is probably different from yours. I don't solely measure the rightness of an action by its contingent consequences, but instead by many other factors as well---including what may be hoped for. If for example you jump in a river to save a drowning baby, but unfortunately both you and the baby drown, I would still label your action as a good one---despite the fact that you failed to achieve what you desired. If more people made similar heroic attempts when necessary, society would be better for it overall. You may not agree that this example is analogous to what we're debating, but that doesn't matter at this point as long as you understand the point I'm trying to make with the example.
3) Like you I don't believe Hussein was a great threat to the U.S. That's why I've never used that argument.
and 4) This one I've answered above: we can only intervene when possible. If it is possible, then perhaps we should. If not, then it's not worth it.
I won't be surprised if we eventually go to war against Iran. After Iraq, though, I doubt the Americans have the desire or will to embark upon another military adventure anytime soon.
you seem to agree with me that the country was no true threat to the US. so are you suggesting that the US went to war with iraq for altruistic reasons? do you actually believe that one major motivational factor was to bring freedom, democracy and other empty propagandistic buzzwords to iraq?
and even if that was the case, why don't we let people decide for themselves whether they want to live under a dictatorship or not? that's what the west did. i doubt that genuine freedom can be achieved when others decide that it has to happen.
what end of which war? the one that you yourself had begun?
but you're right that this isn't an issue of which i am epistemologically unsure. on most pragmatic, moral, and social grounds i don't see the reasons for supporting the war. accordingly, i haven't found your argumentation in favor of it as convincing as usual. i'm actually still not completely sure why you support it. or have you only supported it before the invasion based on the information available?
seriously, the US invaded iraq in order to rid its people of a dictator? i think if it had actually wanted that we had seen better outcomes. the idea that an aggressor and starter of war can act selflessly seem ridiculous to me.2) They may hate us, but my consequentialism is probably different from yours. I don't solely measure the rightness of an action by its contingent consequences, but instead by many other factors as well---including what may be hoped for. If for example you jump in a river to save a drowning baby, but unfortunately both you and the baby drown, I would still label your action as a good one---despite the fact that you failed to achieve what you desired. If more people made similar heroic attempts when necessary, society would be better for it overall. You may not agree that this example is analogous to what we're debating, but that doesn't matter at this point as long as you understand the point I'm trying to make with the example.
and don't give me that stuff about the ad hominem circumstantial fallacy here. the propagandists of the war lying about their motivations makes it very likely that the whole action was not justified.
again, i can only assume that you're making a claim about altruism here. is it no problem for you that the war was extremely expensive and heavily contributed to the american debt?and 4) This one I've answered above: we can only intervene when possible. If it is possible, then perhaps we should. If not, then it's not worth it.
and when is intervention possible and when isn't it? for example, if a country run by a tyrant is a partner of the US in terms of important resources like oil is it then impossible? why don't you invade saudi arabia? they don't stand a chance. what about north korea? nations like russia and china would be more complicated and possibly result in huge losses but who can really keep up with the US militarily? and you said that losses are okay as long as they result in the disposal of dictators.
and what would you think about that war?
I can't see why. Surely you can have a scenario like rwanda and have a foreign power get involved for altristic reasons. Or one like Somalia.
OMG thats a complete non starter - US invading the islamic holyland??? that would be a whole world of crazy... US would not be forgiven for millenia. It would be like nuking jerusalem...why don't you invade saudi arabia? they don't stand a chance. .
So... Zef,
- please DONT invade saudi arabia... probably best not to nuke jerusalem either just in case it was in your plans ...
Heehee! There's really only one country I'd like to invade right now and that's Greenland, for obvious reasons.So... Zef,
- please DONT invade saudi arabia... probably best not to nuke jerusalem either just in case it was in your plans ...
As always, you raise good questions, to which I don't pretend to have all the answers.
As for the "intentions" of the US, I think it's very hard to impute a set of intentions to any large society or nation. It's difficult enough understanding my own motivations let alone a country with more than 300 million citizens. Even if you were only thinking of the US government, or perhaps the most influential people supporting those in government, I'm not sure all of their intentions can be easily reduced to one or two abstract principles (such as democracy, freedom, etc.) or even empirical interests (oil, power, etc.). The best I can do is say why I'm in favor of 'x', and hope that others in positions of power bring about 'x' more so than not.
And as for letting others decide for themselves, I suppose there's some truth in that. As you know I'm not exactly a humanitarian since I think most people live rather dull, stupid, superficial lives even when given the opportunity to embrace more freedom. If people don't want the freedom to speak their minds, to develop their own ideas and values without fear of oppression, to decide for themselves what is right or wrong---if, that is to say, they prefer to live more like animals than humans, then perhaps you are right and we should leave them to their sad, pathetic, gloomy lives.
I think my reasons, put briefly, are twofold: enforce the ceasefire and promote democracy. The first one is primary, the second is subsidiary. In fact, the second one I've been questioning more and more over the last year since my philosophy in the last year or so has become less and less humanitarian. In any case, on the surface, it would be a nice byproduct of any overthrow of tyranny if the people of the country joined us in destroying their oppressive regime. It would be 1) potentially nice for them and 2) potentially nice for us. But if they don't want democracy as you said, then this nice byproduct is pointless. And if free countries can maintain their prosperity regardless of whether some countries starve, torture, rape, and murder their citizens, then the second part of the nice byproduct may also be pointless. If neither of these parts of my second point hold up, then I have to let it go... don't I?
As for the first part, Iraq attacked one of our allies. So we defended our ally. Bush Sr. should have finished the job in the early 90s. What a mistake. So, Iraq showed a propensity to attack our allies, and thus they could not be trusted as a normal sovereign power. If they wanted to avert war they had to abide by the ceasefire conditions. They did not, and so we attacked again. Did Bush Jr. have other motives? I don't even really care too much---and that's mostly speculation anyway. What I want is that we prevent dangers to our interests from growing strong, and whenever we can diminish those dangers I think that we should. If the people of that country are too stupid to fight with us for their freedom, then they don't deserve the hopeful byproducts of the war to which I alluded above.
The difference between you and just about every other non-wingnut person I've ever heard of that supported the war is that you still seem to think it was a good idea. Most others have changed their views.
War with Iran would be just a disaster. There's absolutely no reason for it. Even if Iran gets nukes, are you going to say they'll launch on us? Come on, it wouldn't even be mutually assured destruction. It would be a little bit bad for us vs. them being completely wiped off the face of the Earth. But if being crazy and having nukes is cause for war, then you'll want war with Pakistan. Oh and don't tell Herman Cain, but China has nukes so enjoy that war.
Compare the US approach in Iraq vs. Libya. Could it be any plainer there's a right way and a wrong way to handle global situations? War is the wrong way a lot of the time. It was the right way in the 1940s but it's been wrong ever since.
You are oversimplifying this to a great degree. Iraq was considered (by crazed wingnuts) to be our ally in the 1980s and the WMDs you were so afraid of were given to them by the USA. I'm sure you know that. When Saddam Hussein wanted to annex Kuwait (yeah, our "ally" give me a break), many in Washington thought it would be a good thing because it would put pressure on Saudi Arabia. Hussein's government was considered far more US-friendly because it was secular - no doubt he was a very bad guy, but he didn't care what religion you were as long as you were similarly evil, I guess. He stood against the theocracies of Saudi Arabia and Iran. There's some evidence to suggest that he was actually given a diplomatic go-ahead to take Kuwait and there's a lot of evidence to suggest there could have been a diplomatic solution to avoid the first Gulf War.
Instead George H.W. Bush took the opportunity to create a new boogey man in the middle east while establishing a permanent military presence in the mid east. Did you know that bin Laden's primary complaint with the US was that we had bases in Saudi Arabia? Sure, he was another terrible, terrible person and wrong and evil in just about every way, but like a truly fiendish evildoer, he used a kernel of reasonableness.
Bottom line: we reap what we sow. If people in the region don't like us, they have cause to. How many hundreds of thousands of people died to make us feel manly after 9/11 and to make sure Saddam Hussein didn't have a few odd WMDs lying around? The world will never know, but we do know that a lot of innocent people were killed by us and they didn't need to be.
theoretically, that is possible but it never happens. of the last 70 years, the only probably justifiable US wars were stopping nazi germany and the libyan intervention and both were cases of the US not being the aggressor. i don't know much of its involvement in rwanda but it doesn't seem to have been a military intervention.
no, it's not. the US doesn't have a problem with garrisoning its military all over the place which is already considered a huge offense in the muslim world and causes a lot of hatred. it was one of the primary motivation of osama bin laden and his suicide killers. that doesn't concern US officials. neither does oppressing killing hundreds of thousands of muslims in other countries which, understandably, has caused most hatred yet and still does.OMG thats a complete non starter - US invading the islamic holyland??? that would be a whole world of crazy... US would not be forgiven for millenia. It would be like nuking jerusalem...
i'm, of course, referring to US decision makers, whoever that may be, not to all 300 million americans. i think it's possible to deduce their overall intentions when looking at their actions and decisions.
i'm not sure about the motivations either. thrasher has a proposal. but when i read about all that i read this:
first the US arms iran which is led by a crazy dictator until it has the fourth or fifth biggest military in the world. this is done in order to defend it against soviet oil interests and ensure own oil interests. when the iranian people carry out a very bloody uprising until that dictator, pahlavi, finally flees khomeini takes over power but is disliked by the US. so the US now decides to arm iraq led by hussein instead and orders him to go to war with iran in the iraq-iran war and promise him to be able to keep his oil resources in northern iraq if he does. after the war, the US says screw you and hussein decides to invade kuwait for oil which is also led by a dictator. the US disliked that and starts the gulf war.
more or less. i'll have to read up more of it. but this is already enough for me to conclude that the US doesn't really care about protecting allies, bringing freedom and democracy to other countries, or overthrowing dictators. it only does when it suits its interests.
and what do you mean by this?
thats becase osama is crazy you'll have al the non crazy ones trying to kill you too if you invade SA. Anyway the possibility that you might do it, doesnt stop it being crazy even by US PNAC hawk standards.
These sorts of analysis lack al the nuance that makes all the difference. Im not saying that the US acted right or wrong but what WOULD be wrong is to act in some sort on mindless way that ignores all the details but makes sense in this sort of summary.
Even that aside - what sort of principle are you trying to push for here? That the US should spport allies no matter what they do and no mater what the strategic environment? That it should overthrow dictators at any cost or that it should install democarcy at any cost? I think you clearly disagree with all of those yourself.
What you have however shown is that efforts to achieve aims can eaisily turn out to be things you have to undo at a later stage as situation changes.
So - to give a hypothetical..
infrastrcture used to prevent starvation in ethiopia - could easily be infrastructre you end up destroying by suplying weapons to sudan when ethiopia decides to invade them. And then end up rebuilding afterwards to stop more starvation, or maybe to protect then from... sudan!
I guess the argument is that the israelis and the iranians cant be trusted. And that the iranians will strike at israel or israel will strike preemptively (as it hs before) and those countries will escelate until MAD and there will be no major cities left in the middle east. I doubt that is the case with india vs pakistan but the fact it is the holy land brings to much religion into it for me to be sure regarding the middle east...
That might be fine for the US I suppose US has coal and oil shale.. itll be real bad for europe I guess
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote