Loyalties and Allies

[Diezel]

I'm starting to get tired of the arguments like "The US used to give money to the Taliban", or "Saddam was the US's ally."

So what? What does this argument prove or settle? Loyalties change all the time and this line of reasoning means absolutely nothing. Can you honestly say that you don't have former friends that you hate now, for whatever reason.

And can we really say that countries are "friends"? Maybe a select few, but even those "friendships" would be easily broken over the right circumstances. Every country is out to do what is best for their country and they will use whatever and whoever possible to do that. Yes, the best policy is ally yourself with as many as possible and keep that alliance for as long as you can, but it is not concrete.

Hell, the US hated Russia, then was its ally in WWI, then hated Russia, then was its ally in WWII, then hated Russia, now we are somewhat allies again. This has gone on forever and will never stop (not with Russia, I'm talking about changing loyalties.)

So exactly what point are people trying to make when they say "Well, the US used to... "?

[headscratcher4]

I think what people are trying to say when they note past US history regarding Saddam and the Taliban is that the rhetoric of human freedom, of liberation, of values and democracy sounds hallow when you've danced with the devil...in other words, while we in the US may have many good, strategic and real-politic reasons for going after Saddam, to do so today because he "gassed" his own people while we stood by and watched (because he was fighting Iran -- a bloody mess we tacitly approved us) seems to sound something of a false note.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
I think what people are trying to say when they note past US history regarding Saddam and the Taliban is that the rhetoric of human freedom, of liberation, of values and democracy sounds hallow when you've danced with the devil...in other words, while we in the US may have many good, strategic and real-politic reasons for going after Saddam, to do so today because he "gassed" his own people while we stood by and watched (because he was fighting Iran -- a bloody mess we tacitly approved us) seems to sound something of a false note.

Yes, but weighing the lesser of two evils is always done when dealing with political situations. Concessions and comprimises need to be made when dealing with global politics and timing is always an issue. You not only need to know how to pick your fights, you need to know when to pick them.

Slavery and the US Constitution is a perfect example. The Framers did not want to ban the practice of slavery from the outset, but they also needed the cooperation of the South if they wanted their new country to work. So they made the concession, but had every intention of eliminating slavery in near future, when other things were stabilized and other threats were eliminated. It took a war to make that happen, but it happened.

Now, it can be argued which evil was the lesser of two evils (human rights violations perpetrated by Iraq or the threat from Iran,) but everyone must see that things are not as simple as we wished they were.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Diezel
I'm starting to get tired of the arguments like "The US used to give money to the Taliban", or "Saddam was the US's ally."

So what? What does this argument prove or settle? Loyalties change all the time and this line of reasoning means absolutely nothing.

I trust you're equally tired of the argument that the French are ungrateful for not supporting American foreign policy, despite receiving American help in WWII?

[Diezel]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne


I trust you're equally tired of the argument that the French are ungrateful for not supporting American foreign policy, despite receiving American help in WWII?

Yes, I am. You haven't heard me make this argument and I won't. I could care less what the French want to do. Hell, the French could say the same thing about us being ungrateful for the help they gave us in the American Revolution.

Loyalties change.

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Diezel


Yes, but weighing the lesser of two evils is always done when dealing with political situations. Concessions and comprimises need to be made when dealing with global politics and timing is always an issue. You not only need to know how to pick your fights, you need to know when to pick them.

Slavery and the US Constitution is a perfect example. The Framers did not want to ban the practice of slavery from the outset, but they also needed the cooperation of the South if they wanted their new country to work. So they made the concession, but had every intention of eliminating slavery in near future, when other things were stabilized and other threats were eliminated. It took a war to make that happen, but it happened.

Now, it can be argued which evil was the lesser of two evils (human rights violations perpetrated by Iraq or the threat from Iran,) but everyone must see that things are not as simple as we wished they were.

D: No real argument from me. My point was simply that we (here in the US) speak too often in high moral tones and with rightouse indignation while acting (possibly rationally) but in a way that otherwises compromises our values (and maybe for perfectly understandable reasons). Things are not simple, save for George Bush, today, when they are black and white...they never were (IMO).

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Diezel
Yes, I am. You haven't heard me make this argument and I won't. I could care less what the French want to do. Hell, the French could say the same thing about us being ungrateful for the help they gave us in the American Revolution.

I don't think they helped you out of loyalty to America - rather, they helped because of their own opposition to Britain. Likewise, America didn't support Iraq or Afghanistan out of any great love for Saddam or the Muja Hadin, but because they opposed Iran and the USSR. And herein lies the danger. After sacrificing morality on the altar of expedience, America makes a hypocrite of itself by then playing the morality card. And if America's foreign policy is largely amoral, how can she expect higher standards in others?

[Diezel]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne


I don't think they helped you out of loyalty to America - rather, they helped because of their own opposition to Britain. Likewise, America didn't support Iraq or Afghanistan out of any great love for Saddam or the Muja Hadin, but because they opposed Iran and the USSR. And herein lies the danger. After sacrificing morality on the altar of expedience, America makes a hypocrite of itself by then playing the morality card. And if America's foreign policy is largely amoral, how can she expect higher standards in others?

I agree that all has been done for amoral reasons. And I also agree that America shouldn't be playing the morality card. In some defense (not much), I hear much more about the threat Iraq and Saddam pose more than I hear about any human rights issues. In my not-so-scientific-evaluation, I would say that the press and the President has pushed the "threat" reason about 90% and the moral reason about 10%. And that is good, because Iraq is a possible threat and taking action towards a possible threat is a good thing.

I don't agree with playing the morality card, but also believe it to be a neccesary evil. If there is one thing everyone on this board, no matter what line of political thinking they take, can agree on is this: The general population of any country can't fully understand the dynamics of global politics and situations and things have to be simplified. I wish this didn't have to be the case, but it is.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by headscratcher4


D: No real argument from me. My point was simply that we (here in the US) speak too often in high moral tones and with rightouse indignation while acting (possibly rationally) but in a way that otherwises compromises our values (and maybe for perfectly understandable reasons). Things are not simple, save for George Bush, today, when they are black and white...they never were (IMO).

I didn't forget about you, but my answer to Ian also answered my thoughts on this. :)

[headscratcher4]

Another side of this story, however, is the amorality of many of those who oppose US policy.

I say this as one who distrusts Bush and who is reluctant to support this Administration on it Iraq policy...(believing that unilateral action in this instance is un-called for, wrong and ultimately very damaging to the goals the US says it wants to achieve).

In any event, when one hears anti-war protestors claiming that the US is a greater criminal than Iraq, or specifically that Bush is a greater liar/criminal than Saddam, it is a little hard to take.

For all of Bush's many failings (and, IMO, they are legion), Bush's lies and exagerations are political and subject to political checks -- i.e. an electorate. He will stand (prove me wrong) or fall by his actions and in Iraq. Further, opositon (though the Bushies would like to cast oposition as un-patriotic) to US policy can be -- and to some extent is -- being voiced.

Saddam, on the other hand, is a murderer. Not a hands-off, kill by other means kind of murderer, but someone who has killed oponents with his own hands and watched as others were tortured and murdered before his eyes (and one can only assume with a smile on his lips). My point is that while US policy is a mess, the object of US wrath has no credibility and should be a completely unacceptable person to the international community. It is a testiment to the Bush Policy in this instance that Saddam has credibility and sympathy from so many in the global community -- that the suffering of the Iraqi people is seen as the US's fault and not the fault of the thug/theif who runs the country, and that Bush can be so easilly portrayed as a enemy of peace and global stability while Saddam emerges as a victem.

That Bush has worked to make this view possible, I think, is his worst mistake todate....I mean, this guy makes Chirac seem thoughtful! God, what a mess...

[Diezel]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
Another side of this story, however, is the amorality of many of those who oppose US policy.

I say this as one who distrusts Bush and who is reluctant to support this Administration on it Iraq policy...(believing that unilateral action in this instance is un-called for, wrong and ultimately very damaging to the goals the US says it wants to achieve).

In any event, when one hears anti-war protestors claiming that the US is a greater criminal than Iraq, or specifically that Bush is a greater liar/criminal than Saddam, it is a little hard to take.

For all of Bush's many failings (and, IMO, they are legion), Bush's lies and exagerations are political and subject to political checks -- i.e. an electorate. He will stand (prove me wrong) or fall by his actions and in Iraq. Further, opositon (though the Bushies would like to cast oposition as un-patriotic) to US policy can be -- and to some extent is -- being voiced.

Saddam, on the other hand, is a murderer. Not a hands-off, kill by other means kind of murderer, but someone who has killed oponents with his own hands and watched as others were tortured and murdered before his eyes (and one can only assume with a smile on his lips). My point is that while US policy is a mess, the object of US wrath has no credibility and should be a completely unacceptable person to the international community. It is a testiment to the Bush Policy in this instance that Saddam has credibility and sympathy from so many in the global community -- that the suffering of the Iraqi people is seen as the US's fault and not the fault of the thug/theif who runs the country, and that Bush can be so easilly portrayed as a enemy of peace and global stability while Saddam emerges as a victem.

That Bush has worked to make this view possible, I think, is his worst mistake todate....I mean, this guy makes Chirac seem thoughtful! God, what a mess...

While not a Bush supporter, I don't think you can clearly lay the blame squarely on his shoulders. There are those, who have their own reasons (varied as they are), that will always take the opposite side of the US. That includes many people in the US. And there are those will never, under any circumstances, support military action. Since it just happens to be Bush in the drivers seat, he becomes the target.

Chomsky is a perfect example of one of these people. There is nothing the US could do to make this man happy and he has made a career out of finding (and creating) flaws in the American system. He might be the most visible of his type, but there are plenty of his type all over the world.