Peace Breaking Out All Over

[Sayonara]

Fair enough' date=' and I generally agree with the sentiment.

But how would you have handled, say, Hitler annexing of the Sudetenland, etc?[/quote']

...?

 

You mean as compared to, say, Iraq's spine-chilling policy of doing nothing?

 

 

I imagine you have a response, and knowing you it's likely an intelligent one, but let me just preceed it by pointing out that not all Americans are as smart as you or (at the risk of sounding immodest) me. So they tend to view the above sentiment as weak. Right or wrong, that's the kind of mentality we have to work around here.

True, but then they aren't all in charge of foreign policy or the armed forces - not even indirectly.

 

At this point people would usually say nasty things about the advisors to the president and the joint chiefs, but given recent history I have to wonder if their reputations are deserved. It appears more likely that they just don't get listened to, or any caveats they raise are ignored.

 

 

I disagree in the sense that I don't think democracy has a tendency to arise. I raise China as an example because I think it shows that, for example, economic success is a stronger motivation for change than freedom. Most people care more about food in their bellies and TV sets in their living room than voting rights or freedom of travel. China is proving this on a daily basis.

...

Does this not serve as a potential proof of my refutation that democracy does not necessarily have a tendency to arise?

I think you're probably onto something with your observations on China, but I have not really explained myself well here. I meant that whatever China does is not proof for you or myself, due to the fact that (a) I called it a tendency, which means not every nation will inevitably develop democracy, and (b) we can't observe China's entire history yet.

 

 

Tell me---what was the point then, since you seem to think I missed it, obligatory rolleyes

Sorry, I was pushed for time.

 

The overall point is that we should be more critical of our own motives abroad before we act, more responsible and less self-oriented in our dealings with other nations, and not afraid to face our past misdeeds with objectivity and accountability. The idea of overt nationalism within a global community is symptomatic of backward and dying societies.

[syntax252]

...?

 

Sorry' date=' I was pushed for time.

 

The overall point is that we should be more critical of our own motives abroad before we act, more responsible and less self-oriented in our dealings with other nations, and not afraid to face our past misdeeds with objectivity and accountability. The idea of overt nationalism within a global community is symptomatic of backward and dying societies.[/quote']

 

So, if the poor bastards are being brutalized by a tyranical dictator and they lack the gonads to raise themselves up by their own bootstraps, to bloody Hell with them--right?

 

Whaddys think should be done in Sudan?

 

We know that the UN "deplores" the situation but that is of little comfort to the genocidees.

[Sayonara]

So' date=' if the poor bastards are being brutalized by a tyranical dictator and they lack the gonads to raise themselves up by their own bootstraps, to bloody Hell with them--right?

 

Whaddys think should be done in Sudan?

 

We know that the UN "deplores" the situation but that is of little comfort to the genocidees.[/quote']

You don't seem to be replying to what I said, except in the loosest sense of the word.

[syntax252]

You don't seem to be replying to what I said, except in the loosest sense of the word.

 

Well then, never mind.

[Pangloss]

You mean as compared to, say, Iraq's spine-chilling policy of doing nothing?

 

Right, but we're speaking hypothetically; I know Iraq was not aggressive in 2003 (I opposed the current conflict).

 

Let me clarify. You said:

 

I don't really consider wading into random countries with the army o' death and toppling governments to be defensive measures.

 

So my question is, at what point *would* you consider it valid to "wade in" and topple a foreign government? What criteria would you use, if any?

 

My guess is that your quote above is not an indication of a general policy of appeasement-at-all-costs on your part, but rather a reflection of a requirement of clear aggression prior to military action. That's great, I support that, but what I'm saying is that this needs to be made more clear to the American public. When they hear things like "I don't consider toppling foreign governments to be defensive measures" from a European, what they think they're seeing is "peace in our time" and "never chain Berlin".

 

Educating the American public is only a small part of the picture, obviously. We need to work hard on issues like deciding when it's a good idea to send in the troops, defining issues like genocide, and solving problems of corruption.

 

 

True, but then they aren't all in charge of foreign policy or the armed forces - not even indirectly.

 

Yes indeed. One expects a higher level of attentiveness and insight from people actually charged with the responsibility of running a country.

 

But of course only a fool would believe that their list of executable actions is not tempered by a knowledge of "what the public will accept", which is in turn based on the public's flawed and faulty knowledge, not the leadership's enlightened, expert knowledge.

 

One need look no farther than European public reaction to American foreign policy, and how it guides and limits (or in the case of Spain, terminates) European governmental actions, to see this in action. I can assure you that the same sort of thing happens here in the States.

[john5746]

First of all, we need to remember that Iraq was a special case. They had invaded Kuwait, and as a result of getting whipped, signed agreements. We were trying to invorce said agreements.

 

Bush jumped the gun IMO, but it wasn't as if there was absolutely no precedence.

 

That being said, I disagree that the war in Iraq was needed for the recent spread of democracy. If I remember, we had the world on our side after 9/11 and Afghanistan. Arafat dying is the spark for the Palestinian deal, and Lebanon has always had a problem with Syria. I'm not sure we can say things wouldn't have been better had we not invaded Iraq.

 

Of course, we may have needed to invade anyway, but I am certain Iran and Korea would have acquired WMD before Saddam could, as is the case presently anyway.

[Phi for All]

Educating the American public is only a small part of the picture, obviously. We need to work hard on issues like deciding when it's a good idea to send in the troops, defining issues like genocide, and solving problems of corruption.

So true. It is so easy to whip an American into a patriotic frenzy by implying weakness and invoking moral high-ground, topped off by a dollop of Almighty righteousness. Look back a few posts, you'll see an infamous UK liberal (as in having political or social views favoring reform and progress) basically saying, "We should keep an eye out for the interests of the world in general instead of just our own when declaring war in an age where nuclear global destruction is a real possibility." To which an American conservative (as in resistant to change) posted, "You mean when someone needs our help against evil we have to stop and think? "

 

The spin doctors who leak stories to the press know that if they mention the corruption or abuse in Iraq, most US citizens will not think about the corruption and abuse we will bring to bear. We are willing to destroy human lives over corruption or abuse from Iraquis, but we drape the flag over our heads and stuff it into our ears when we hear about what Haliburton did, or what our military sanctioned at Abu Ghraib.