FREE TAPATALK APP

Travis · 7th July 2011, 04:38 PM

In 2000 I had campaigned for Al Gore most enthusiastically. In November I was distraught over the election results. So how weird was it that three years later I found myself at a rally surrounded by people I had always considered to be my enemy.

Yes, I was a liberal that was in favor of invading Iraq. In fact that position of mine had been constant since Clinton was president. When Clinton had bowed out without an invasion I was a bit disappointed as I thought of W as too selfish to ever do it. So how pleasantly surprised I was that we were, then, on the brink of actually doing it.

Of course then the whole WMD thing started to be brought up as a potential reason for the war. I didn't like that. It seemed so self serving to only invade the country when we thought we might be in danger. But it came about anyways.

In the meantime I was savoring the idea of a genocidal madman being brought to justice. Someone who's crimes such as Al-Anfal had kept me awake at night during my early college years. Someone I couldn't believe the rest of the world seemed content to let stay in power.

So, anyways, that was a very weird time in my life.

Trakar · 7th July 2011, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by Travis

In 2000 I had campaigned for Al Gore most enthusiastically. In November I was distraught over the election results. So how weird was it that three years later I found myself at a rally surrounded by people I had always considered to be my enemy.

Yes, I was a liberal that was in favor of invading Iraq. In fact that position of mine had been constant since Clinton was president. When Clinton had bowed out without an invasion I was a bit disappointed as I thought of W as too selfish to ever do it. So how pleasantly surprised I was that we were, then, on the brink of actually doing it.

Of course then the whole WMD thing started to be brought up as a potential reason for the war. I didn't like that. It seemed so self serving to only invade the country when we thought we might be in danger. But it came about anyways.

In the meantime I was savoring the idea of a genocidal madman being brought to justice. Someone who's crimes such as Al-Anfal had kept me awake at night during my early college years. Someone I couldn't believe the rest of the world seemed content to let stay in power.

So, anyways, that was a very weird time in my life.

What led you to believe that it was the duty and goal of america to police the world?

BenBurch · 7th July 2011, 09:58 PM

I'm not pro-war, I'm pro necessary war, but only if we do it in enough force to make it an overrun.

If you take all the people who had been assigned to Afghanistan and Iraq together, and had inserted them into Afghanistan in the first few weeks, with orders to simply kill effectively all Taliban and all Al Queyda, and to do so quickly, and then to retreat in force, it would have been done, it would have been cheaper, it would have sent a message.

I am not pro incompetently planned, incompetently staffed wars that expect to get a blitzkrieg followed by skittles and rainbows.

Travis · 7th July 2011, 11:00 PM

Originally Posted by TShaitanaku

What led you to believe that it was the duty and goal of america to police the world?

Who else would do it? Europe is in it's "pretentious pacifist" phase. Africa is filled with the countries that need policing and occupation. Brazil, India and Australia are not up for it. Japan can't do it legally. And no one would trust either Russia or China to do it.

So that just leaves the USA.

There was a long list of countries I wanted America to invade, occupy and remake into a hybrid version of itself. Obviously that never happened when it turned out that the people operating the occupation of Iraq did not know what in the hell they were doing.

Trakar · 7th July 2011, 11:11 PM

Originally Posted by Travis

Who else would do it? Europe is in it's "pretentious pacifist" phase. Africa is filled with the countries that need policing and occupation. Brazil, India and Australia are not up for it. Japan can't do it legally. And no one would trust either Russia or China to do it.

So that just leaves the USA.

There was a long list of countries I wanted America to invade, occupy and remake into a hybrid version of itself. Obviously that never happened when it turned out that the people operating the occupation of Iraq did not know what in the hell they were doing.

I don't think any group of people, should take it upon themselves to try and force other people to behave as they think they should. Its one thing to protect yourself from others actions against you and to advocate for your way of believing and acting, its an entirely different leap to think that your way is the best and only way to do things and to try and force everyone else you encounter to behave according to your understandings and beliefs.

geni · 7th July 2011, 11:16 PM

Originally Posted by Travis

Who else would do it? Europe is in it's "pretentious pacifist" phase.

Not actualy true.

While the US has managed to get the UK tied down in some unfortunate wars france has been very active in its former empire.

Kopji · 7th July 2011, 11:22 PM

Humm. Well I found myself accidentally pulled into a protest march against our drive to war. I try to be a bystander

In hindsight I really hate it when sitting in the backwoods of Arizona I could predict how it would all go, better than they could. I guessed we'd be there about 10 years, not 6 weeks.

I'm not convinced that a whole lot of deep thinking went into the whole thing.

Is this going to be a war thread?

angrysoba · 7th July 2011, 11:45 PM

Originally Posted by Travis

There was a long list of countries I wanted America to invade, occupy and remake into a hybrid version of itself. Obviously that never happened when it turned out that the people operating the occupation of Iraq did not know what in the hell they were doing.

It's probably also true that those urging them on didn't know what in the hell they were supporting. Given such facts would this make you more or less likely to support future wars in which the aims seem just?

Which countries were on your list by the way?

Brainster · 8th July 2011, 02:24 AM

I know a lot of liberals were pushing for an intervention in Darfur.

angrysoba · 8th July 2011, 04:03 AM

Originally Posted by Brainster

I know a lot of liberals were pushing for an intervention in Darfur.

Yes, this is true. I think also that the military intervention by NATO in Yugoslavia was generally considered to be a success and also that of the UK in Sierra Leone. From those successes it was probably considered that the West could bring about good, liberal changes in some of the most backward countries in the world such as Afghanistan and - at least as far as the government was concerned - Iraq.

I was sympathetic to the idea of overthrowing the despicable tyrant Saddam Hussein but the war was, from the beginning, predicated on the idea of removing someone who posed a threat to the West, particularly the US and I didn't consider the threat level to be worth the inevitable expenditure of lives. If you supported the intervention then you really had to expect accountability on the threat level. I think many liberals realized, or should have done, that their own aims weren't going to be pursued by an administration which didn't put a priority on their aims.

DC · 8th July 2011, 04:17 AM

Originally Posted by Travis

Who else would do it? Europe is in it's "pretentious pacifist" phase. Africa is filled with the countries that need policing and occupation. Brazil, India and Australia are not up for it. Japan can't do it legally. And no one would trust either Russia or China to do it.

So that just leaves the USA.

There was a long list of countries I wanted America to invade, occupy and remake into a hybrid version of itself. Obviously that never happened when it turned out that the people operating the occupation of Iraq did not know what in the hell they were doing.

or the US

Travis · 8th July 2011, 04:30 AM

Originally Posted by TShaitanaku

I don't think any group of people, should take it upon themselves to try and force other people to behave as they think they should. Its one thing to protect yourself from others actions against you and to advocate for your way of believing and acting, its an entirely different leap to think that your way is the best and only way to do things and to try and force everyone else you encounter to behave according to your understandings and beliefs.

Well, it's not about making them into a clone of yourself. The idea is to bring things like representative democracy and the rule of law to them. Stabilize the place and set up the infrastructure for education and equal rights.

Originally Posted by angrysoba

It's probably also true that those urging them on didn't know what in the hell they were supporting. Given such facts would this make you more or less likely to support future wars in which the aims seem just?

Somewhat less likely. I would still want just wars but I would now need assurances that the whole thing will be administrated well. Now I was not a naive fool all the way with Iraq. I did figure on us being there for six to ten years.

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Which countries were on your list by the way?

Iran
North Korea
Sudan
Sierra Leone
Cameroon
Zimbabwe
Burma

Neally · 8th July 2011, 07:05 AM

Originally Posted by Travis

Well, it's not about making them into a clone of yourself. The idea is to bring things like representative democracy and the rule of law to them. Stabilize the place and set up the infrastructure for education and equal rights.

Guess what? When the people of those countries decide for themselves that they've had enough of dictatorial rule, they themselves change the powers that be. No need for outside do-gooders to try to fix it.

Undesired Walrus · 8th July 2011, 08:20 AM

Originally Posted by Travis

Iran
North Korea
Sudan
Sierra Leone
Cameroon
Zimbabwe
Burma

Would an intervention improve the situation there?

angrysoba · 8th July 2011, 08:34 AM

[quote=Travis;7349438]

Quote:

Somewhat less likely. I would still want just wars but I would now need assurances that the whole thing will be administrated well. Now I was not a naive fool all the way with Iraq. I did figure on us being there for six to ten years.

I think you have to have an exceedingly rigorous defintion of Just War. A rule of thumb might be, if you are not quite sure you trust the motives of those in the driving seat then the war may not be just. But simply believing your cause is just is clearly not enough. Almost everyone believes that.

Quote:

Iran
North Korea
Sudan
Sierra Leone
Cameroon
Zimbabwe
Burma

On that list I could probably think of some scenarios in which intervention could be just. Sudan, on behalf of Darfuris or perhaps - as may well happen - on behalf of South Sudanese.

North Korea, IFF the DPRK invaded South Korea. If not then invasion of the DPRK would be horrifically foolish.

Cameroon??? I don't know anywhere near enough to understand why that would be a good idea but please, please do enlighten us.

Zimbabwe? Well, the place is a complete mess but Mugabe will die soon and good riddance when he does. Until we know which way the wind blows there it is quixotic, at best, for the US to think of invading. Maybe South Africa should given that the US would not be appreciated for it.

Burma? Well, again. If you are going to write up lists about which countries must be invaded post-haste then you presumably have a reason for it. Could you explain your strategy vis-a-vis Burma?

Iran? Well, I tend to agree with the ex-head of Mossad on this and always have done that this is one of the stupidest ideas imaginable. Iran is not even like all the other tinpot crappy countries on your list. Iran is, unfortunately, a highly educated and intelligent country that won't roll over. I really do think that despite all the opposition to the disgusting theocrats in charge of that place an invasion would be utterly counterproductive. Far more hope and trust and funding should be invested in the middle class of Iran who really do want to be free and throw off the confines of the theocracy.

BenBurch · 8th July 2011, 08:38 AM

Originally Posted by Travis

...

Iran
North Korea
Sudan
Sierra Leone
Cameroon
Zimbabwe
Burma

CHORUS
We didn't start the fire
It was always burning
Since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire
No we didn't light it
But we tried to fight it

Crossbow · 8th July 2011, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by Travis

In 2000 I had campaigned for Al Gore most enthusiastically. In November I was distraught over the election results. So how weird was it that three years later I found myself at a rally surrounded by people I had always considered to be my enemy.

Yes, I was a liberal that was in favor of invading Iraq. In fact that position of mine had been constant since Clinton was president. When Clinton had bowed out without an invasion I was a bit disappointed as I thought of W as too selfish to ever do it. So how pleasantly surprised I was that we were, then, on the brink of actually doing it.

Of course then the whole WMD thing started to be brought up as a potential reason for the war. I didn't like that. It seemed so self serving to only invade the country when we thought we might be in danger. But it came about anyways.

In the meantime I was savoring the idea of a genocidal madman being brought to justice. Someone who's crimes such as Al-Anfal had kept me awake at night during my early college years. Someone I couldn't believe the rest of the world seemed content to let stay in power.

So, anyways, that was a very weird time in my life.

Yes, I have to agree, you sure did have very weird thought process all right.

angrysoba · 8th July 2011, 09:38 AM

Actually, I think I'd like to meet Travis half-way on this because even if I don't agree with him on Iraq I do know what he means.

I think there were just reasons for intervening in Iraq but the fact that such reasons weren't front and centre meant that there was no reason for believing that the outcome would favour such reasons. It is wishful thinking to believe that good governance (which was a low priority) would coincide with the aims of the intervention (which were nebulous).

I have some kind of theory of the inertia of foreign wars in which they can't possibly happen until the governmental mind is made up to make them happen. And when they happen they can't be stopped even though no one really knows why such wars are happening. This doesn't go for all wars of course but some of the recent ones such as in Afghanistan fit the bill. No one waging the war now was waging it ten years ago and probably no one doing so even knows what the objective is. If someone was to suggest it is to destroy fundamentalist Islam and let girls learn in school the opinion would probably be met with derision. That's probably what makes it so weird to be a pro-war liberal.

Kopji · 8th July 2011, 02:44 PM

Ok. So I'm a little confused. Travis - You realize that there were two wars over Iraq right? One under George H Bush and one under George W Bush.

A brief history of time

1980's
Saddam: Iran is MINE - boom
US: Ok, good idea. Here's some chemicals that if used wrongly might be dangerous weapons. Don't do that though, is bad and evil.
Saddam: Kurds are MINE - boom
Chemical weapons used against Kurds and Iran
US: Remember what we said about being bad? Oh ok, here's some more peaceful chemicals and weapon stuff.
1990's
Saddam: Kuwait is MINE, all MINE! buahhahaha - boom
GHB: Thumbs twiddling... Oh, wait, War!
Israeli civilian targets bombed by Iraq
War ends. Saddam not brought to justice.
(Rwanda genocide, we do nothing at all)
GHB: 'read my lips, no new taxes' raises taxes and is ousted
Clinton: How about that Somalia success? - Spends much time thinking about cigars, sex, being impeached
2000's
GWB: Republicans Rule! or, it is good to have friends on the Supreme Court
2001: 911 Iraq shows its true colors and must be destroyed
Bush 2b: War! (Iraq)
Bush 2c: War! (Afghanistan)
or maybe the other way around. who remembers?

Conclusion - "Dang that Clinton".

Is the argument that a liberal can believe in war, or that pervasive propaganda, misinformation, and otherwise control of information have a rather broad and politically neutral influence in preventing good decisions from being made?

Travis · 9th July 2011, 12:50 PM

I don't know. I just thought that we would could do in Iraq what we did in Japan following WW2.

Mr. Purple · 9th July 2011, 01:43 PM

I thought American Exceptionalism was more territory of the right than the left.
W(ho)TF elected us to be the world's police force?

Ziggurat · 9th July 2011, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by Neally

Guess what? When the people of those countries decide for themselves that they've had enough of dictatorial rule, they themselves change the powers that be. No need for outside do-gooders to try to fix it.

The internal overthrow of a dictator for something other than another dictator doesn't actually happen very often in history. And so far, I don't think it's ever happened in a petro-economy.

angrysoba · 9th July 2011, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by Travis

I don't know. I just thought that we would could do in Iraq what we did in Japan following WW2.

I understand what you mean. However, not long before the Iraq War itself, John W. Dower, a professor of history specializing in Japanese history wrote this essay dismissing the parallels between Japan and Iraq:

Quote:

8Starting last fall, we began to hear that U.S. policymakers were looking into Japan and Germany after World War II as examples or even models of successful military occupations. In the case of Japan, the imagined analogy with Iraq is probably irresistible. Although Japan was nominally occupied by the victorious “Allied powers” from August 1945 until early 1952, the Americans ran the show and tolerated no disagreement. This was Unilateralism with a capital “U”—much as we are seeing in U.S. global policy in general today. And the occupation was a pronounced success. A repressive society became democratic, and Japan—like Germany—has posed no military threat for over half a century.

The problem is that few if any of the ingredients that made this success possible are present—or would be present—in the case of Iraq. The lessons we can draw from the occupation of Japan all become warnings where Iraq is concerned.

http://www.bostonreview.net/BR28.1/dower.html

Bill Thompson · 10th July 2011, 05:09 AM

I think it is wierd to be a pro-war human being.

Neally · 10th July 2011, 07:21 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

The internal overthrow of a dictator for something other than another dictator doesn't actually happen very often in history. And so far, I don't think it's ever happened in a petro-economy.

Then I'd say that the people of the country are happy with choosing to have a dictatorial form of government rather than a democracy, and again no justification for another country to impose their idea on what form of government those people should choose.

BenBurch · 10th July 2011, 10:10 AM

Originally Posted by Travis

I don't know. I just thought that we would could do in Iraq what we did in Japan following WW2.

This would have required an occupation of sufficient size, and we never even contemplated the 4-5 million troops that would have required.

Ziggurat · 10th July 2011, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by Neally

Then I'd say that the people of the country are happy with choosing to have a dictatorial form of government rather than a democracy, and again no justification for another country to impose their idea on what form of government those people should choose.

You can say that all you want to, but there's no reason to believe it's true. Dictators don't need the people of their country to be happy (and generally speaking, they aren't), and they don't generally have any choice in the matter either. Particularly in petro-states, where the regime only requires a small fraction of the populace in order to sustain its economy. Those select few may indeed be happy and choose to support the regime, but you simply cannot make that claim about the populace as a whole. It's simply not true.

Trakar · 10th July 2011, 10:41 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

You can say that all you want to, but there's no reason to believe it's true. Dictators don't need the people of their country to be happy (and generally speaking, they aren't), and they don't generally have any choice in the matter either. Particularly in petro-states, where the regime only requires a small fraction of the populace in order to sustain its economy. Those select few may indeed be happy and choose to support the regime, but you simply cannot make that claim about the populace as a whole. It's simply not true.

I don't think this is limited to authoritarian governments, but seems pretty much true for all forms of government elected or imposed.

Alt+F4 · 10th July 2011, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus

Would an intervention improve the situation there?

Indeed. See Somalia, 1992-1994.

Ziggurat · 10th July 2011, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by TShaitanaku

I don't think this is limited to authoritarian governments, but seems pretty much true for all forms of government elected or imposed.

Obviously not. In the US, for example, we're perfectly able to change our form of government. Most people just don't want to (and why would they?). Furthermore, what I said about petro-states specifically really isn't applicable to other states. There aren't any other countries which can function based on the economic activities of such a small fraction of the population.

Kopji · 10th July 2011, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by Bill Thompson

I think it is wierd to be a pro-war human being.

Could maybe be better expressed. War is a associated with diplomacy, but is it a component or tool of diplomacy? Is it a last resort of diplomacy? Is war a complete failure of diplomacy? Is it always wrong?

I'm taking 'pro-war' here to mean that war is not thought of as a last resort or collapse of diplomacy and reason, but that war is more like a component of national relations you'd rather avoid but is not taboo.

Trakar · 10th July 2011, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Obviously not. In the US, for example, we're perfectly able to change our form of government. Most people just don't want to (and why would they?). Furthermore, what I said about petro-states specifically really isn't applicable to other states. There aren't any other countries which can function based on the economic activities of such a small fraction of the population.

people everywhere are pretty much able to change their government, provided enough of them feel motivated to take the actions necessary to do so, its mostly about cost/benefit ratios. As to the number of people that control the key economic factors in nations, I think this is actually always a relatively small fraction of the population whether we are talking the oil ministry of a petro-state, or the federal reserve and NYSE/NASDAQ boards in the US.

Neally · 10th July 2011, 03:28 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Dictators don't need the people of their country to be happy (and generally speaking, they aren't), and they don't generally have any choice in the matter either.

For dictators to remain in power through force, they can no longer remain in power when the population which includes the military, rises up to make a change. It certainly has happened in the past and again, the mere fact that a dictator is in power is no justification for other countries to invade it to bring a democratic form of government.

Crossbow · 11th July 2011, 05:23 AM

Originally Posted by Travis

I don't know. I just thought that we would could do in Iraq what we did in Japan following WW2.

Exactly so!

That was my biggest problem with the pro-war people. They never did consider the fact that cleaning up Iraq would be a very serious problem, and instead they expected that we would be given "flowers and candy" and when we rolled in.

And as a result, the pro-war people never even bothered to develop a post-war plan or bother to get other nations on-board with the war effort because they belived that the USA could handle everything on its own.

In short, the pro-war people were both foolishly optimistic and dangerously optimistic which has resulted in needles deaths of thousands of Americans, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and at least a trillion dollars wasted.

Undesired Walrus · 11th July 2011, 06:26 AM

I'm a bit perplexed why Cameroon (WTF?) is on that list while Saudi Arabia isn't.

Virus · 11th July 2011, 01:37 PM

History's dirty little secret that the left don't want you to know: A lot of places were better off under colonialism.

Bringing back a liberal form of colonialism would be good for some failed and rogue states.

BenBurch · 11th July 2011, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by Virus

History's dirty little secret that the left don't want you to know: A lot of places were better off under colonialism.

Bringing back a liberal form of colonialism would be good for some failed and rogue states.

And soon we can return to what is obviously your ideal, then; slavery.

Undesired Walrus · 11th July 2011, 04:11 PM

By 'the left' virus, you mean 'civilised thought'?

Virus · 11th July 2011, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

And soon we can return to what is obviously your ideal, then; slavery.

I never mentioned slavery.

BenBurch · 11th July 2011, 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by Virus

I never mentioned slavery.

If you understood how colonialism worked, you'd realize that it wasn't two farthings difference between that and slavery.

Redirecting (my social work side comes out) - Do you feel that the founding fathers were wrong to resist British colonialism?

7th July 2011, 04:38 PM	#1
Travis Misanthrope of the Mountains Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Tuolumne City, CA Posts: 18,101	It was weird to be a pro-war Liberal In 2000 I had campaigned for Al Gore most enthusiastically. In November I was distraught over the election results. So how weird was it that three years later I found myself at a rally surrounded by people I had always considered to be my enemy. Yes, I was a liberal that was in favor of invading Iraq. In fact that position of mine had been constant since Clinton was president. When Clinton had bowed out without an invasion I was a bit disappointed as I thought of W as too selfish to ever do it. So how pleasantly surprised I was that we were, then, on the brink of actually doing it. Of course then the whole WMD thing started to be brought up as a potential reason for the war. I didn't like that. It seemed so self serving to only invade the country when we thought we might be in danger. But it came about anyways. In the meantime I was savoring the idea of a genocidal madman being brought to justice. Someone who's crimes such as Al-Anfal had kept me awake at night during my early college years. Someone I couldn't believe the rest of the world seemed content to let stay in power. So, anyways, that was a very weird time in my life.
	__________________ "Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com Zingiber Officinale The Humor blog of some not crazy guy

7th July 2011, 05:50 PM	#2
Trakar Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 5,944	Originally Posted by Travis In 2000 I had campaigned for Al Gore most enthusiastically. In November I was distraught over the election results. So how weird was it that three years later I found myself at a rally surrounded by people I had always considered to be my enemy. Yes, I was a liberal that was in favor of invading Iraq. In fact that position of mine had been constant since Clinton was president. When Clinton had bowed out without an invasion I was a bit disappointed as I thought of W as too selfish to ever do it. So how pleasantly surprised I was that we were, then, on the brink of actually doing it. Of course then the whole WMD thing started to be brought up as a potential reason for the war. I didn't like that. It seemed so self serving to only invade the country when we thought we might be in danger. But it came about anyways. In the meantime I was savoring the idea of a genocidal madman being brought to justice. Someone who's crimes such as Al-Anfal had kept me awake at night during my early college years. Someone I couldn't believe the rest of the world seemed content to let stay in power. So, anyways, that was a very weird time in my life. What led you to believe that it was the duty and goal of america to police the world?
Trakar Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 5,944	__________________ Trakar AKA/formerly TShaitanaku "Dubitanda quippe ad inquisitionem venimus; inquirendo veritatem percipimus." (By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth.) — Peter Abelard

7th July 2011, 09:58 PM	#3
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,492	I'm not pro-war, I'm pro necessary war, but only if we do it in enough force to make it an overrun. If you take all the people who had been assigned to Afghanistan and Iraq together, and had inserted them into Afghanistan in the first few weeks, with orders to simply kill effectively all Taliban and all Al Queyda, and to do so quickly, and then to retreat in force, it would have been done, it would have been cheaper, it would have sent a message. I am not pro incompetently planned, incompetently staffed wars that expect to get a blitzkrieg followed by skittles and rainbows.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

7th July 2011, 11:00 PM	#4
Travis Misanthrope of the Mountains Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Tuolumne City, CA Posts: 18,101	Originally Posted by TShaitanaku What led you to believe that it was the duty and goal of america to police the world? Who else would do it? Europe is in it's "pretentious pacifist" phase. Africa is filled with the countries that need policing and occupation. Brazil, India and Australia are not up for it. Japan can't do it legally. And no one would trust either Russia or China to do it. So that just leaves the USA. There was a long list of countries I wanted America to invade, occupy and remake into a hybrid version of itself. Obviously that never happened when it turned out that the people operating the occupation of Iraq did not know what in the hell they were doing.
	__________________ "Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com Zingiber Officinale The Humor blog of some not crazy guy

7th July 2011, 11:11 PM	#5
Trakar Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 5,944	Originally Posted by Travis Who else would do it? Europe is in it's "pretentious pacifist" phase. Africa is filled with the countries that need policing and occupation. Brazil, India and Australia are not up for it. Japan can't do it legally. And no one would trust either Russia or China to do it. So that just leaves the USA. There was a long list of countries I wanted America to invade, occupy and remake into a hybrid version of itself. Obviously that never happened when it turned out that the people operating the occupation of Iraq did not know what in the hell they were doing. I don't think any group of people, should take it upon themselves to try and force other people to behave as they think they should. Its one thing to protect yourself from others actions against you and to advocate for your way of believing and acting, its an entirely different leap to think that your way is the best and only way to do things and to try and force everyone else you encounter to behave according to your understandings and beliefs.
Trakar Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 5,944	__________________ Trakar AKA/formerly TShaitanaku "Dubitanda quippe ad inquisitionem venimus; inquirendo veritatem percipimus." (By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth.) — Peter Abelard

7th July 2011, 11:16 PM	#6
geni Anti-homeopathy illuminati member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: UK Posts: 26,640	Originally Posted by Travis Who else would do it? Europe is in it's "pretentious pacifist" phase. Not actualy true. While the US has managed to get the UK tied down in some unfortunate wars france has been very active in its former empire.

7th July 2011, 11:22 PM	#7
Kopji Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Mogollon Rim Posts: 7,710	Humm. Well I found myself accidentally pulled into a protest march against our drive to war. I try to be a bystander In hindsight I really hate it when sitting in the backwoods of Arizona I could predict how it would all go, better than they could. I guessed we'd be there about 10 years, not 6 weeks. I'm not convinced that a whole lot of deep thinking went into the whole thing. Is this going to be a war thread?
	Last edited by Kopji; 7th July 2011 at 11:23 PM.

7th July 2011, 11:45 PM	#8
angrysoba Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 8,883	Originally Posted by Travis There was a long list of countries I wanted America to invade, occupy and remake into a hybrid version of itself. Obviously that never happened when it turned out that the people operating the occupation of Iraq did not know what in the hell they were doing. It's probably also true that those urging them on didn't know what in the hell they were supporting. Given such facts would this make you more or less likely to support future wars in which the aims seem just? Which countries were on your list by the way?

8th July 2011, 02:24 AM	#9
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 10,539	I know a lot of liberals were pushing for an intervention in Darfur.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

8th July 2011, 04:03 AM	#10
angrysoba Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 8,883	Originally Posted by Brainster I know a lot of liberals were pushing for an intervention in Darfur. Yes, this is true. I think also that the military intervention by NATO in Yugoslavia was generally considered to be a success and also that of the UK in Sierra Leone. From those successes it was probably considered that the West could bring about good, liberal changes in some of the most backward countries in the world such as Afghanistan and - at least as far as the government was concerned - Iraq. I was sympathetic to the idea of overthrowing the despicable tyrant Saddam Hussein but the war was, from the beginning, predicated on the idea of removing someone who posed a threat to the West, particularly the US and I didn't consider the threat level to be worth the inevitable expenditure of lives. If you supported the intervention then you really had to expect accountability on the threat level. I think many liberals realized, or should have done, that their own aims weren't going to be pursued by an administration which didn't put a priority on their aims.

8th July 2011, 04:17 AM	#11
DC dedicated aphilatelist Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Switzerland Posts: 21,708	Originally Posted by Travis Who else would do it? Europe is in it's "pretentious pacifist" phase. Africa is filled with the countries that need policing and occupation. Brazil, India and Australia are not up for it. Japan can't do it legally. And no one would trust either Russia or China to do it. So that just leaves the USA. There was a long list of countries I wanted America to invade, occupy and remake into a hybrid version of itself. Obviously that never happened when it turned out that the people operating the occupation of Iraq did not know what in the hell they were doing. or the US
	__________________ AGW is a fact, including the A, face it

8th July 2011, 04:30 AM	#12
Travis Misanthrope of the Mountains Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Tuolumne City, CA Posts: 18,101	Originally Posted by TShaitanaku I don't think any group of people, should take it upon themselves to try and force other people to behave as they think they should. Its one thing to protect yourself from others actions against you and to advocate for your way of believing and acting, its an entirely different leap to think that your way is the best and only way to do things and to try and force everyone else you encounter to behave according to your understandings and beliefs. Well, it's not about making them into a clone of yourself. The idea is to bring things like representative democracy and the rule of law to them. Stabilize the place and set up the infrastructure for education and equal rights. Originally Posted by angrysoba It's probably also true that those urging them on didn't know what in the hell they were supporting. Given such facts would this make you more or less likely to support future wars in which the aims seem just? Somewhat less likely. I would still want just wars but I would now need assurances that the whole thing will be administrated well. Now I was not a naive fool all the way with Iraq. I did figure on us being there for six to ten years. Originally Posted by angrysoba Which countries were on your list by the way? Iran North Korea Sudan Sierra Leone Cameroon Zimbabwe Burma
	__________________ "Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com Zingiber Officinale The Humor blog of some not crazy guy

8th July 2011, 07:05 AM	#13
Neally Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,150	Originally Posted by Travis Well, it's not about making them into a clone of yourself. The idea is to bring things like representative democracy and the rule of law to them. Stabilize the place and set up the infrastructure for education and equal rights. Guess what? When the people of those countries decide for themselves that they've had enough of dictatorial rule, they themselves change the powers that be. No need for outside do-gooders to try to fix it.
Neally Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,150

8th July 2011, 08:20 AM	#14
Undesired Walrus Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: London Posts: 10,904	Originally Posted by Travis Iran North Korea Sudan Sierra Leone Cameroon Zimbabwe Burma Would an intervention improve the situation there?
	__________________ Man's material discoveries have outpaced his moral progress. - Clement Attlee, 1945

8th July 2011, 08:34 AM	#15
angrysoba Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 8,883	[quote=Travis;7349438] Quote: Somewhat less likely. I would still want just wars but I would now need assurances that the whole thing will be administrated well. Now I was not a naive fool all the way with Iraq. I did figure on us being there for six to ten years. I think you have to have an exceedingly rigorous defintion of Just War. A rule of thumb might be, if you are not quite sure you trust the motives of those in the driving seat then the war may not be just. But simply believing your cause is just is clearly not enough. Almost everyone believes that. Quote: Iran North Korea Sudan Sierra Leone Cameroon Zimbabwe Burma On that list I could probably think of some scenarios in which intervention could be just. Sudan, on behalf of Darfuris or perhaps - as may well happen - on behalf of South Sudanese. North Korea, IFF the DPRK invaded South Korea. If not then invasion of the DPRK would be horrifically foolish. Cameroon??? I don't know anywhere near enough to understand why that would be a good idea but please, please do enlighten us. Zimbabwe? Well, the place is a complete mess but Mugabe will die soon and good riddance when he does. Until we know which way the wind blows there it is quixotic, at best, for the US to think of invading. Maybe South Africa should given that the US would not be appreciated for it. Burma? Well, again. If you are going to write up lists about which countries must be invaded post-haste then you presumably have a reason for it. Could you explain your strategy vis-a-vis Burma? Iran? Well, I tend to agree with the ex-head of Mossad on this and always have done that this is one of the stupidest ideas imaginable. Iran is not even like all the other tinpot crappy countries on your list. Iran is, unfortunately, a highly educated and intelligent country that won't roll over. I really do think that despite all the opposition to the disgusting theocrats in charge of that place an invasion would be utterly counterproductive. Far more hope and trust and funding should be invested in the middle class of Iran who really do want to be free and throw off the confines of the theocracy.

8th July 2011, 08:38 AM	#16
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,492	Originally Posted by Travis ... Iran North Korea Sudan Sierra Leone Cameroon Zimbabwe Burma CHORUS We didn't start the fire It was always burning Since the world's been turning We didn't start the fire No we didn't light it But we tried to fight it
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

8th July 2011, 09:19 AM	#17
Crossbow Seeking Honesty and Sanity Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 6,349	Originally Posted by Travis In 2000 I had campaigned for Al Gore most enthusiastically. In November I was distraught over the election results. So how weird was it that three years later I found myself at a rally surrounded by people I had always considered to be my enemy. Yes, I was a liberal that was in favor of invading Iraq. In fact that position of mine had been constant since Clinton was president. When Clinton had bowed out without an invasion I was a bit disappointed as I thought of W as too selfish to ever do it. So how pleasantly surprised I was that we were, then, on the brink of actually doing it. Of course then the whole WMD thing started to be brought up as a potential reason for the war. I didn't like that. It seemed so self serving to only invade the country when we thought we might be in danger. But it came about anyways. In the meantime I was savoring the idea of a genocidal madman being brought to justice. Someone who's crimes such as Al-Anfal had kept me awake at night during my early college years. Someone I couldn't believe the rest of the world seemed content to let stay in power. So, anyways, that was a very weird time in my life. Yes, I have to agree, you sure did have very weird thought process all right.
	__________________ A man's best friend is his dogma.

8th July 2011, 09:38 AM	#18
angrysoba Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 8,883	Actually, I think I'd like to meet Travis half-way on this because even if I don't agree with him on Iraq I do know what he means. I think there were just reasons for intervening in Iraq but the fact that such reasons weren't front and centre meant that there was no reason for believing that the outcome would favour such reasons. It is wishful thinking to believe that good governance (which was a low priority) would coincide with the aims of the intervention (which were nebulous). I have some kind of theory of the inertia of foreign wars in which they can't possibly happen until the governmental mind is made up to make them happen. And when they happen they can't be stopped even though no one really knows why such wars are happening. This doesn't go for all wars of course but some of the recent ones such as in Afghanistan fit the bill. No one waging the war now was waging it ten years ago and probably no one doing so even knows what the objective is. If someone was to suggest it is to destroy fundamentalist Islam and let girls learn in school the opinion would probably be met with derision. That's probably what makes it so weird to be a pro-war liberal.

8th July 2011, 02:44 PM	#19
Kopji Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Mogollon Rim Posts: 7,710	Ok. So I'm a little confused. Travis - You realize that there were two wars over Iraq right? One under George H Bush and one under George W Bush. A brief history of time 1980's Saddam: Iran is MINE - boom US: Ok, good idea. Here's some chemicals that if used wrongly might be dangerous weapons. Don't do that though, is bad and evil. Saddam: Kurds are MINE - boom Chemical weapons used against Kurds and Iran US: Remember what we said about being bad? Oh ok, here's some more peaceful chemicals and weapon stuff. 1990's Saddam: Kuwait is MINE, all MINE! buahhahaha - boom GHB: Thumbs twiddling... Oh, wait, War! Israeli civilian targets bombed by Iraq War ends. Saddam not brought to justice. (Rwanda genocide, we do nothing at all) GHB: 'read my lips, no new taxes' raises taxes and is ousted Clinton: How about that Somalia success? - Spends much time thinking about cigars, sex, being impeached 2000's GWB: Republicans Rule! or, it is good to have friends on the Supreme Court 2001: 911 Iraq shows its true colors and must be destroyed Bush 2b: War! (Iraq) Bush 2c: War! (Afghanistan) or maybe the other way around. who remembers? Conclusion - "Dang that Clinton". Is the argument that a liberal can believe in war, or that pervasive propaganda, misinformation, and otherwise control of information have a rather broad and politically neutral influence in preventing good decisions from being made?

9th July 2011, 12:50 PM	#20
Travis Misanthrope of the Mountains Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Tuolumne City, CA Posts: 18,101	I don't know. I just thought that we would could do in Iraq what we did in Japan following WW2.
	__________________ "Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com Zingiber Officinale The Humor blog of some not crazy guy

9th July 2011, 01:43 PM	#21
Mr. Purple Some Other Guy on Some Other Job Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 1,437	I thought American Exceptionalism was more territory of the right than the left. W(ho)TF elected us to be the world's police force?
	__________________ Everything above is a lie.

9th July 2011, 03:13 PM	#22
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,285	Originally Posted by Neally Guess what? When the people of those countries decide for themselves that they've had enough of dictatorial rule, they themselves change the powers that be. No need for outside do-gooders to try to fix it. The internal overthrow of a dictator for something other than another dictator doesn't actually happen very often in history. And so far, I don't think it's ever happened in a petro-economy.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

9th July 2011, 03:28 PM	#23
angrysoba Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 8,883	Originally Posted by Travis I don't know. I just thought that we would could do in Iraq what we did in Japan following WW2. I understand what you mean. However, not long before the Iraq War itself, John W. Dower, a professor of history specializing in Japanese history wrote this essay dismissing the parallels between Japan and Iraq: Quote: 8Starting last fall, we began to hear that U.S. policymakers were looking into Japan and Germany after World War II as examples or even models of successful military occupations. In the case of Japan, the imagined analogy with Iraq is probably irresistible. Although Japan was nominally occupied by the victorious “Allied powers” from August 1945 until early 1952, the Americans ran the show and tolerated no disagreement. This was Unilateralism with a capital “U”—much as we are seeing in U.S. global policy in general today. And the occupation was a pronounced success. A repressive society became democratic, and Japan—like Germany—has posed no military threat for over half a century. The problem is that few if any of the ingredients that made this success possible are present—or would be present—in the case of Iraq. The lessons we can draw from the occupation of Japan all become warnings where Iraq is concerned. http://www.bostonreview.net/BR28.1/dower.html

10th July 2011, 05:09 AM	#24
Bill Thompson Banned Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Redmond, Washington Posts: 6,176	I think it is wierd to be a pro-war human being.

10th July 2011, 07:21 AM	#25
Neally Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,150	Originally Posted by Ziggurat The internal overthrow of a dictator for something other than another dictator doesn't actually happen very often in history. And so far, I don't think it's ever happened in a petro-economy. Then I'd say that the people of the country are happy with choosing to have a dictatorial form of government rather than a democracy, and again no justification for another country to impose their idea on what form of government those people should choose.
Neally Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,150

10th July 2011, 10:10 AM	#26
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,492	Originally Posted by Travis I don't know. I just thought that we would could do in Iraq what we did in Japan following WW2. This would have required an occupation of sufficient size, and we never even contemplated the 4-5 million troops that would have required.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

10th July 2011, 10:16 AM	#27
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,285	Originally Posted by Neally Then I'd say that the people of the country are happy with choosing to have a dictatorial form of government rather than a democracy, and again no justification for another country to impose their idea on what form of government those people should choose. You can say that all you want to, but there's no reason to believe it's true. Dictators don't need the people of their country to be happy (and generally speaking, they aren't), and they don't generally have any choice in the matter either. Particularly in petro-states, where the regime only requires a small fraction of the populace in order to sustain its economy. Those select few may indeed be happy and choose to support the regime, but you simply cannot make that claim about the populace as a whole. It's simply not true.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

10th July 2011, 10:41 AM	#28
Trakar Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 5,944	Originally Posted by Ziggurat You can say that all you want to, but there's no reason to believe it's true. Dictators don't need the people of their country to be happy (and generally speaking, they aren't), and they don't generally have any choice in the matter either. Particularly in petro-states, where the regime only requires a small fraction of the populace in order to sustain its economy. Those select few may indeed be happy and choose to support the regime, but you simply cannot make that claim about the populace as a whole. It's simply not true. I don't think this is limited to authoritarian governments, but seems pretty much true for all forms of government elected or imposed.
Trakar Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 5,944	__________________ Trakar AKA/formerly TShaitanaku "Dubitanda quippe ad inquisitionem venimus; inquirendo veritatem percipimus." (By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth.) — Peter Abelard

10th July 2011, 10:59 AM	#29
Alt+F4 diabolical globalist Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Department of Abandoned Places Posts: 9,804	Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus Would an intervention improve the situation there? Indeed. See Somalia, 1992-1994.
	__________________ "My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky

10th July 2011, 11:37 AM	#30
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,285	Originally Posted by TShaitanaku I don't think this is limited to authoritarian governments, but seems pretty much true for all forms of government elected or imposed. Obviously not. In the US, for example, we're perfectly able to change our form of government. Most people just don't want to (and why would they?). Furthermore, what I said about petro-states specifically really isn't applicable to other states. There aren't any other countries which can function based on the economic activities of such a small fraction of the population.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

10th July 2011, 12:32 PM	#31
Kopji Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Mogollon Rim Posts: 7,710	Originally Posted by Bill Thompson I think it is wierd to be a pro-war human being. Could maybe be better expressed. War is a associated with diplomacy, but is it a component or tool of diplomacy? Is it a last resort of diplomacy? Is war a complete failure of diplomacy? Is it always wrong? I'm taking 'pro-war' here to mean that war is not thought of as a last resort or collapse of diplomacy and reason, but that war is more like a component of national relations you'd rather avoid but is not taboo.

10th July 2011, 01:43 PM	#32
Trakar Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 5,944	Originally Posted by Ziggurat Obviously not. In the US, for example, we're perfectly able to change our form of government. Most people just don't want to (and why would they?). Furthermore, what I said about petro-states specifically really isn't applicable to other states. There aren't any other countries which can function based on the economic activities of such a small fraction of the population. people everywhere are pretty much able to change their government, provided enough of them feel motivated to take the actions necessary to do so, its mostly about cost/benefit ratios. As to the number of people that control the key economic factors in nations, I think this is actually always a relatively small fraction of the population whether we are talking the oil ministry of a petro-state, or the federal reserve and NYSE/NASDAQ boards in the US.
Trakar Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 5,944	__________________ Trakar AKA/formerly TShaitanaku "Dubitanda quippe ad inquisitionem venimus; inquirendo veritatem percipimus." (By doubting we come to inquiry, and through inquiry we perceive truth.) — Peter Abelard

10th July 2011, 03:28 PM	#33
Neally Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,150	Originally Posted by Ziggurat Dictators don't need the people of their country to be happy (and generally speaking, they aren't), and they don't generally have any choice in the matter either. For dictators to remain in power through force, they can no longer remain in power when the population which includes the military, rises up to make a change. It certainly has happened in the past and again, the mere fact that a dictator is in power is no justification for other countries to invade it to bring a democratic form of government.
Neally Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 3,150

11th July 2011, 05:23 AM	#34
Crossbow Seeking Honesty and Sanity Join Date: Oct 2001 Posts: 6,349	Originally Posted by Travis I don't know. I just thought that we would could do in Iraq what we did in Japan following WW2. Exactly so! That was my biggest problem with the pro-war people. They never did consider the fact that cleaning up Iraq would be a very serious problem, and instead they expected that we would be given "flowers and candy" and when we rolled in. And as a result, the pro-war people never even bothered to develop a post-war plan or bother to get other nations on-board with the war effort because they belived that the USA could handle everything on its own. In short, the pro-war people were both foolishly optimistic and dangerously optimistic which has resulted in needles deaths of thousands of Americans, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and at least a trillion dollars wasted.
	__________________ A man's best friend is his dogma.

11th July 2011, 06:26 AM	#35
Undesired Walrus Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: London Posts: 10,904	I'm a bit perplexed why Cameroon (WTF?) is on that list while Saudi Arabia isn't.
	__________________ Man's material discoveries have outpaced his moral progress. - Clement Attlee, 1945