We Must Fight On, Even Alone

[corplinx]

I was talking to some european friends tonight, and I asked what it would take to get them on board to wipe out one of the largest sponsors of mideast terrorism. They basically replied that "nobody cares". These were French/German people and I was trying to get insight into the things normal people talk about over there. They also believe this is mostly about oil an further don't care.

I have often joked on this forum about how europe does not care to remove Saddam because "white people aren't dieing". I am sad to say a version of this is the case. Physical torture of children, funding terror, arming terror, allowing terror camps, and the continual inspections game do not seem to to break the apathy of our allies.

In other words, trying to persuade their citizens would take a massive propganda campaign we can't afford. Mr. Powell, you may be able to defeat Saddam but I doubt you can defeat western apathy. It took 3000 deaths to break America out of apathy. A previous attack on the same buildings didn't even cause a blip on our collective radar. Because of apathy, 3000 more people died.

Mr. Powell, no amount of persuasion will awaken our allies from their sleep. Cry Havoc! and let loose the dogs of war!

In other words, trying to persuade their citizens would take a massive propganda campaign we can't afford.


Correction. It would take a massive propaganda campaign that wouldn't work.



Mr. Powell, you may be able to defeat Saddam but I doubt you can defeat western apathy. It took 3000 deaths to break America out of apathy.


Correction. It took 3000 deaths to break America out of delusions of invincibility.


Mr. Powell, no amount of persuasion will awaken our allies from their sleep.


Your "allies" believe in international law. They are awake. They just don't happen to buy into the American Imperialist dream.


Cry Havoc! and let loose the dogs of war!


And let justice be done.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


Correction. It would take a massive propaganda campaign that wouldn't work.
Correction. It took 3000 deaths to break America out of delusions of invincibility.
Your "allies" believe in international law. They are awake. They just don't happen to buy into the American Imperialist dream.
And let justice be done.

I never claimed proganda would work; I just said it would be too much time and money.

3000 deaths (not that many in the grand scheme) did indeed break us out of a apathy that bordered on atrophy. A little something called Vietnam taught us that we were not invulnerable long ago.

My allies "believe" in international law. Which is precisely the problem because their damn well isn't such a thing.

As for american imperialist dreams, they don't exist. These are a boogeyman for people who need easy answers despite their correctness.

[corplinx]

From Tennyson's Lotos-Eaters:

Let us alone. Time driveth onward fast,
And in a little while our lips are dumb.
Let us alone. What is it that will last?
All things are taken from us, and become
Portions and parcels of the dreadful past.
Let us alone. What pleasure can we have
To war with evil? Is there any peace
In ever climbing up the climbing wave?
All things have rest, and ripen toward the grave
In silence; ripen, fall and cease:
Give us long rest or death, dark death, or dreamful ease.

[Victor Danilchenko]

corplinx

I have often joked on this forum about how europe does not care to remove Saddam because "white people aren't dieing". I am sad to say a version of this is the case. Physical torture of children, funding terror, arming terror, allowing terror camps, and the continual inspections game do not seem to to break the apathy of our allies.A very interesting point comes up, one that's been hovering around for a while.

Yes, Saddam is evil. Yes he is destroying countless lives. The real question is -- is invading iraq the appropriate response? More generally, should we forcibly impose our vision of freedom and democracy on the world -- and can we?

The thing to think about here is, can freedom be forced upon someone? Can democracy be imposed from without? Pretty much all successful democracies evolved (or revolved) from within. I frankly can't think of a single example where democracy was successfully imposed by force (with the arguable exception of post-WWII germany -- arguable because it already got democracy on its own, earlier).

So, the question to ask the Wilsonians is: fine, you have a great moral agenda; and supposing it's justified, are the means you are using to pursue it actually effective?

See, I would not be at all surprised if invading un-democratic countries and replacing their governments was about as ineffective at fighting tyranny, as War on Drugs is at fighting drug abuse. At the very least, this is something to seriously consider, instead of knee-jerking "Saddam is bad, let's invade Iraq and replace Saddam's government", the way we already knee-jerked "drugs are bad, let's ban drugs".

The other question of coruse is, if we are take the Wilsonian policy to its full logical extent, we owe it to much of the rest of the world to invade them and set up new governments for them. While we are at it, we owe to the rest of the world to feed them, because more people die from hunger and malnutrition that from tyrants' abuses.

So, my dearly beloved Wilsoanian conservatives -- please, let's think as well as feel, rather than merely feeling without rational thought.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
corplinx



I frankly can't think of a single example where democracy was successfully imposed by force (with the arguable exception of post-WWII germany -- arguable because it already got democracy on its own, earlier).



Japan, and S. Korea come to mind.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Tony

Japan, and S. Korea come to mind.True. I thought about Japan after I made the post. I don't know enough about South Korea.

OK, we have one example, possibly two. At the same time, we have a number of examples of forcible imposition of democracy failing miserably. I do wonder what was different about Japan that it was able to transition so quickly from a theocratic monarchy to a democracy (perhaps Hirohito's cooperation played a role, eh?), but it still doesn't change my overall point.

besides, both examples you gave come from the same cultural domain, which suggests that even if no other factors can account for japan's and S.Korea's successful transition, it's very possible that it was their cultural specifics that enabled it -- which cultural factors are absent in Iraq.

[mbp]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Tony I don't know enough about South Korea.

South Korea didn't become a real democracy until 1987 or something like that. I don't think that country is a good example of the US succesfully imposing democracy.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by mbp

South Korea didn't become a real democracy until 1987 or something like that. I don't think that country is a good example of the US succesfully imposing democracy.

good point. I think ROK had brief periods of democracy in 1960-61 and 1980-81 before the time you said. The ROK army would usually crush anytime they saw too much danger in democracy.

However,
The ROK does show I believe in comparison what the two sides in the Cold War could offer. You have a starving Stalinist state and a state that has evolved into being a democratic and prosperous nation.

[mbp]

Originally posted by Mike B.

However,
The ROK does show I believe in comparison what the two sides in the Cold War could offer. You have a starving Stalinist state and a state that has evolved into being a democratic and prosperous nation.
Undoubtedly. At no time after the Korean war would I rather have lived in the North than in the South.
But it is interesting that both in South Korea and Taiwan, prosperity came first and then democratisation. Not the other way around.

[blackpriester]

same thing with east and west germany...

Originally posted by corplinx

Cry Havoc! and let loose the dogs of war!

Just to be a pedantic pain in the neck, I believe it's "let slip the dogs of war."

I think it's Shakespeare, but it's a good Christopher Walken movie, too. Dogs of War.

[Victor Danilchenko]

So, we have:

ROK, which didn't really have democracy forcibly imposed from without

Japan, where the imposition of democracy had the cooperation of the local non-democratic government.

My point is still stands then -- Saddam may be evil and Iraq groaning under his tyranny, but there's no reason to believe that invading Iraq and forcibly setting up a democratic government will make things any better, except perhaps in the shortest of terms.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by mbp

But it is interesting that both in South Korea and Taiwan, prosperity came first and then democratisation. Not the other way around.
Good point. But it brings up the question.... would the prosperity have happened had they not been supported by the U.S.? (Not trying to say it would or woudn't. Just wanted an opinion or 2.)

Of course, democracy has happened in Eastern Europe/Russia, partly due to the 'winning' of the cold war by the U.S. And that happened before 'prosperity'.

[Agammamon]

If we are going to go after Iraq simply because of its governments oppression, then where do we stop? Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, North Korea, Israel/Palestine, Nigeria, Pakistan, India, China, Mexico, Russia, Moracco?

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

Correction. It took 3000 deaths to break America out of delusions of invincibility.


I'm very uncomfortable with your continued use of these deaths as a debating tool. Could you make your points without it, please?

[mbp]

Originally posted by mbp

But it is interesting that both in South Korea and Taiwan, prosperity came first and then democratisation. Not the other way around.


Originally posted by Segnosaur

Good point. But it brings up the question.... would the prosperity have happened had they not been supported by the U.S.? (Not trying to say it would or woudn't. Just wanted an opinion or 2.)

I think U.S. support was what made it possible for South Korea and Taiwan to prosper, as it is doubtful if either of them could have maintained their independence without it.
But only in that sense. If there had been no threats from the outside I think both countries could have prospered without any assistance.



Of course, democracy has happened in Eastern Europe/Russia, partly due to the 'winning' of the cold war by the U.S. And that happened before 'prosperity'.
Indeed. But you could say that the countries in Eastern Europe became democratic almost as soon as they became independent. (If not for the Soviet Union I think we would have had a mostly democratic Eastern Europe from 1945.)
And even though they weren't prosperous by Western standards, they weren't exactly third-world countries.

It seems to me that democratic countries tend to be richer than non-democratic ones (with obvious exceptions). Is this because prosperous societies tend to become democratic, or because democratic societies tend to prosper?
Or are the two things perhaps not really related.

[LillyThePink]

Originally posted by sundog


I'm very uncomfortable with your continued use of these deaths as a debating tool. Could you make your points without it, please?

I can appreciate this point; UCE is not very subtle about his weapons. However, I think it most likely that the US would not be starting to stomp about in the ME if not for the events of September 11 - and I think that is UCE's (blunt) point.

As with Pearl Harbour, America has to be attacked on American soil before the isolationism is lessened. THIS IS NOT AN ATTACK, merely a statement of my opinion.

[Graham]

Originally posted by LukeT


Just to be a pedantic pain in the neck, I believe it's "let slip the dogs of war."

I think it's Shakespeare, but it's a good Christopher Walken movie, too. Dogs of War.

Since I have nothing else of any value to add to this discussion, I'll just point out that it should be:

Cry "Havoc" and let slip the dogs of war.

The inverted commas are important 'cos otherwise it looks like he's telling someone called Havoc to cry :)

The play is Julius Caesar, by the way.I'm not his biggest fan in the world but he did produce an astonishing number of "quotable quotes" eh?

Graham

[DrBenway]

The title of your thread is a reference to Churchill, I'm guessing.

But the Battle of Britain was quite a different thing, in comparison with our current conflict with Iraq. Iraq isn't bombing us. Sure, they're aiding our enemies. Sure, they're part of the problem. But they're not an imminent risk to America's survival.

I don't think we should go it alone in Iraq. We're the invading army, not the defenders, in Iraq. We need a legal basis for action. We need allies who can confirm that action is justified.

Originally posted by sundog


I'm very uncomfortable with your continued use of these deaths as a debating tool. Could you make your points without it, please?

Do you think this war would be happening if 9/11 hadn't?

It is not a 'debating tool' - it's central to what is happening now and why it is happening.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


It is not a 'debating tool' - it's central to what is happening now and why it is happening.

I agree, that is why I mentioned it first. :)

[corplinx]

Originally posted by DrBenway
The title of your thread is a reference to Churchill, I'm guessing.


No. I made it up.

[corplinx]

I see people argue about the fact that there are other brutal regimes besides Iraq out there. So let me just say this.

Yes. I wish we had the money and resources to liberate all the oppressed people of the world. No. I don't think leaders who have children physically punished in front of their parents should be tolerated in this millenium.

Iraq also sponsors terrorism (not Al Q though). It seems as though people are forgetting this is also part of a larger war on terrorism.

So, people ask if we should take democracy to Iraq? No. We should take choice to Iraq. They should be able to decide for once how they should be ruled. They may not pick a republic, but it is up to them.

[blackadder]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
corplinx

A very interesting point comes up, one that's been hovering The thing to think about here is, can freedom be forced upon someone? Can democracy be imposed from without? Pretty much all successful democracies evolved (or revolved) from within. I frankly can't think of a single example where democracy was successfully imposed by force (with the arguable exception of post-WWII germany -- arguable because it already got democracy on its own, earlier).

.

Well, I can think of one....try post WWI Germany (i.e. the Wienmar Republic). This little experiment in democracy was forced on the German people after the Kaiser was given the boot. Trouble was, the Germans LIKED the Kaiser and LIKED the system they were living under. Chancellor after Chancellor tried to solidify the government. The crushing punishment of the Versilles (sp?) treaty coupled with the major economic depression made this hopeless. Then along came the NSDAP and Hitler to solve all the problems. One Reichstag fire later, and Germany no longer is democratic. And what do we learn from this? Forcing people to adopt ideas, however noble, that they find foregin, and even repugnant, will only lead to more misery later on. Pres. Bush, (I will respect the office, but as for the person who is occuping it at the moment, my opinion is that the sooner he's out, the better.) should rethink his ideas on post-Saddam Iraq.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by DrBenway
The title of your thread is a reference to Churchill, I'm guessing.

But the Battle of Britain was quite a different thing, in comparison with our current conflict with Iraq. Iraq isn't bombing us. Sure, they're aiding our enemies. Sure, they're part of the problem. But they're not an imminent risk to America's survival.


As an aside, and not treally on anyone's main point -- England declared war without being directly attacked, and thus did not wait to be bombed. Indeed, Churchill (among others) advocated such action or such threats with the take-over of Czechoslovakia /sp/ previous to the invasion of Poland.

Pedantic side-issue nit pick over.

NA

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger


As an aside, and not treally on anyone's main point -- England declared war without being directly attacked, and thus did not wait to be bombed.
And Canada declared war shortly after Britian did, and we were separated from the war by a whole ocean.

[Zep]

First up, it's refreshing to see a forum here where this hot-potato issue is being discussed intelligently by Americans and others of all views WITHOUT descent into mindless gung-ho-ness. Well done - keep it up!

Second, I'd like to pose a hypothetical situation:

Imagine that a good ally of the US has been, for years, allowing the US military and other forces to use their sovereign soil and resources to build bases which conducted covert surveillance on other countries (and possibly on the host country too). And the US forces had literally full control of these facilities and surrounding areas, even to the extent that they could threaten or indeed actually shoot intruders who were citizens of that country. As if the facilities were on soverign US soil, in fact!

Then one day, suppose that the people of this country decided they had had enough of this and wanted to remove all the US forces and repossess their own soil and these facilities, by force if necessary. And these facilities would be capable of spying on US military operations.

Question: What would be the current US government's response to this threat? Would they consider invading this "friendly" ally's country because they feel "US citizens' basic freedoms are being threatened"? That "US-owned facilities" are being threatened? Whose country would it be anyway, and who do you feel is actually being threatened and why?

This is not a trick question, but quite real. And one of importance to this whole Iraq situation.

Zep

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by Zep
What would be the current US government's response to this threat? Would they consider invading this "friendly" ally's country because they feel "US citizens' basic freedoms are being threatened"? That "US-owned facilities" are being threatened? Whose country would it be anyway, and who do you feel is actually being threatened and why?

To quote Rufus T. Firefly: "A four year old child could understand this. Now go out and find a four year old cause I don’t understand a word of it."

All fought for the love of wealthy Mrs. Teasdale...

[Zep]

C'mon, Frank! Have a real go at understanding! You can't be that dumb...

Zep