American Foreign Policy

[Maryhartslegs]

Where is the Morality?

[Sitnam]

Should American conduct their affairs with a higher level of morality than any other nation?

[FinnAgain]

Where is the Morality?

It's with the rest of the OP. When you find it let us know.

[Der Trihs]

Should American conduct their affairs with a higher level of morality than any other nation?"Jimmy's Mom lets him do it" is the kind of defense that works poorly even when you are in grade school. And that's even assuming that America's behave IS the equal of other nations and not worse.

[The Tao's Revenge]

Should American conduct their affairs with a higher level of morality than any other nation?

The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/) seems like a good baseline.

Oh wait

Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.



Article 9.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.

Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.



Article 25.

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.


Guess we fucked that one up.

[Sitnam]

Hey, it's not my OP. I didn't say anything is ok as long as others do it, just want to know what metric we're using and if the US is expected to be above a certain bar.

I have to assume Maryhartslegs is trying to make a point, I have to assume that because right now I have no fucking idea what this is about.

[Sage Rat]

It ain't illegal if you don't get caught.

The problem is simply that we got caught. Otherwise, I suspect that there isn't a nation in the world (including France, the UK, Germany, etc.) which doesn't break at least some of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on a monthly basis, via their special or secret services. Generally, this is done quietly, with proper care given to make sure that all is deniable, and everything unproveable.

The only difference is that Bush II or Cheney, for no obvious reason, decided to do it publicly for a change and that left messy loose ends that can't be easily re-hidden. We effectively have to wait out the natural lives of our victims, trying to keep them in a political limbo for all that time, so that they have no legal recourse.

We still have special forces and secret agents roaming the Earth. They're probably still doing something illegal every day. The problems that Bush left us with doesn't negate the necessity of playing the game, it's just a good reminder to keep it on the down-low.

[Der Trihs]

"The game" isn't necessary, and it isn't a game, it's evil. Nor do I think that it is nearly as common as you think because such behavior is stupid and largely pointless as well as evil.

And it's still illegal if you don't get caught, too.

[Sitnam]

How bout we wait for Maryhartslegs to say something before we decide if we agree with him or not.

[Der Trihs]

How bout we wait for Maryhartslegs to say something before we decide if we agree with him or not.For all we know he/she might never post again. So we might as well argue about the morality of American foreign policy until they do.

[The Tao's Revenge]

How bout we wait for Maryhartslegs to say something before we decide if we agree with him or not.

Fair enough.

[Tristan]

It's pointless to debate it, when there is no willingness to debate a point, Der Trihs.

Your opinions are not facts.

Maybe starting with a debate on the nature of evil and how it relates to real world political dealings would be a good idea.

[Der Trihs]

It's pointless to debate it, when there is no willingness to debate a point, Der Trihs.

Your opinions are not facts.It is however a fact that actual interrogation experts consider torture worse than useless. And doing things that are worse than useless is naturally not necessary. And not getting caught doesn't make a crime any less a crime.

Complaining that what I said is "just an opinion" doesn't make me wrong; it doesn't even make what I said just my opinion. And the fact that the morality of torture is even considered seriously debatable is a sign of how morally vile and corrupt this country has become. And if that offends pro-torture people, too bad.

[Tristan]

On these points, I agree with you. Where I disagree with you is your apparent belief that there is some other nation on the planet that doesn't do what the US does, or wouldn't do what the US does if placed in the same situation.

You bang the "The US is da EBIL!" drum all day long, but it makes no sense when at best the song should be "Humans are da EBIL!". The US is not any more villanous than anyone else. Your opinion that it is has no basis in fact.

Bad things happen. Bad policy decisions are made, and hopefully those policies will be done away with.

[The Tao's Revenge]

Bad things happen. Bad policy decisions are made, and hopefully those policies will be done away with.

Torture is not a bad policy decision, it's a cold blooded act. Those who do it should face justice, that they haven't been brought to justice shows an inherent evil in the American system.

"Just following orders" wasn't an excuse in WWII and isn't now.

[John Mace]

Where is the Morality?

It's hiding under my bed.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Where is the Morality?

We're a moral country and have a moral foreign policy. We give tremendous amounts of aid in help reconstructing countries that tried to kill us (Germany, Japan, Afghanistan, Iraq etc.), we engage in humanitarian interventions without regard to self-interest, and so on. How moral can you get?

[Ludovic]

You bang the "The US is da EBIL!" drum all day long, but it makes no sense when at best the song should be "Humans are da EBIL!". The US is not any more villanous than anyone else. Your opinion that it is has no basis in fact.While the opinion that the US is not more or less villanous than anyone else may or may not be true, it is not logically impossible for it to be so. You would agree that certain governments are or have been more evil than average? Then it is possible for any government to be more or less evil than average. Since we agree that all government are not equally evil, it then not a logical dead end to ask whether the US is one of the more evil ones.

[Tristan]

Torture is not a bad policy decision, it's a cold blooded act. Those who do it should face justice, that they haven't been brought to justice shows an inherent evil in the American system.

"Just following orders" wasn't an excuse in WWII and isn't now.

I agree, for what that's worth. Though, the matter of if water boarding is actually torture is still being discussed all over the place. Given that McCain, a man who had it done to him by the enemy says that it is, I tend to agree that it is.

That being said, that grey zone makes the issue complicated, but if it is determined at some point that it is illegal, and it shouldn't have been used, than those who ORDERED it should face consequences. Of course, that will never happen.

While the opinion that the US is not more or less villanous than anyone else may or may not be true, it is not logically impossible for it to be so. You would agree that certain governments are or have been more evil than average? Then it is possible for any government to be more or less evil than average. Since we agree that all government are not equally evil, it then not a logical dead end to ask whether the US is one of the more evil ones.

Yes, I fully admit that there are areas where the US is probably "more evil" than other nations. Though you then have the issue of trying to determine what exactly is "evil". PErsonally, I feel that while we have ways to go, especially with foreign relations, we probably skew more towards the "good" side of things.

However, my comment was specifically addressed at Der Trihs, who makes the point that the US is the all time evil of all evils, US Soldiers are all murderers who should die, that the government is run by villains who laugh with glee at innocents being killed, and other vile and slanderous statements designed to make the US into some sort of real world version of Latveria or something.

[Algher]

Torture is not a bad policy decision, it's a cold blooded act. Those who do it should face justice, that they haven't been brought to justice shows an inherent evil in the American system.

"Just following orders" wasn't an excuse in WWII and isn't now.

"Just following orders" was not an excuse for the Germans. For the Allies - hell, we didn't even bother with a trial.

First you must come up with an agreement as to what torture is, and I am fully aware of the various definitions out there. Then you have to decided if there are different levels. Then you have to decide how to apply the definition. What is severe suffering? I would argue that any prison lockup is severe suffering, but we don't mind locking up prisoners.

That is just torture. The OP's drive-by mentioned American Foreign Policy. Is our aid policy immoral? How about when we send food someplace? Does international trade count? Shall we discuss UN peacekeeping activities? Is a NATO led mission US foreign policy, or can we blame someone else.

If you are going to go after the morality of US foreign policy, you need to start someplace with a specific area.

[Der Trihs]

On these points, I agree with you. Where I disagree with you is your apparent belief that there is some other nation on the planet that doesn't do what the US does, or wouldn't do what the US does if placed in the same situation. Most countries don't. Because what we did was stupid.

You bang the "The US is da EBIL!" drum all day long, but it makes no sense when at best the song should be "Humans are da EBIL!". The US is not any more villanous than anyone else. Your opinion that it is has no basis in fact.Oh, nonsense. America is more villainous than many other countries; most countries haven't even bothered to build the kinds of military and other resources necessary to match us that way.

We're a moral country and have a moral foreign policy. We give tremendous amounts of aid in help reconstructing countries that tried to kill us (Germany, Japan, Afghanistan, Iraq etc.), we engage in humanitarian interventions without regard to self-interest, and so on. How moral can you get?:rolleyes: Iraq didn't "try to kill us", that was a war of pure conquest and malice on our part. And we've left them in ruins and demanded they pay us for the privilege of being bombed and tortured and slaughtered. And the "reconstruction" consisted primarily of funneling government money into Republican-tied businesses while doing nothing useful. As for Afghanistan, we haven't accomplished anything there but sit around while torturing and killing people nearly at random.

And of course we train and support worldwide torturers, terrorists, death squads and dictators.

[CoolHandCox]

I agree, for what that's worth. Though, the matter of if water boarding is actually torture is still being discussed all over the place. Given that McCain, a man who had it done to him by the enemy says that it is, I tend to agree that it is.

That being said, that grey zone makes the issue complicated, but if it is determined at some point that it is illegal, and it shouldn't have been used, than those who ORDERED it should face consequences. Of course, that will never happen.

The Convention Against Torture states in Article 12: "Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed in any territory under its jurisdiction. The US is a party to that treaty.

President Obama in 2009 said waterboarding is torture: "I believe that waterboarding was torture and, whatever legal rationals were used, it was a mistake."

Whether, you, me, or anyone else believes waterboarding is torture, the US President does.

But, also in 2009, President Obama refused to prosecute the torturers: "In releasing these [enhanced interrogation/torture] memos, it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution," the president said. Of course, the CAT also covers that in Article 2 ("An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.").

Clear violation of the CAT by Obama (beyond the acts themselves committed under Bush). The US Executive believes waterboarding is torture, the US Executive is not going to investigate. The CAT is not US law however. I'm doubting those Articles are self-executing. But still, if anyone is looking for justice for those acts, it's clearly not coming from the US. If you think it is torture, then you should really investigate. It's bad foreign policy to condemn it, but do nothing about it. That's weak.

[marshmallow]

Nation states are amoral by necessity.

[gonzomax]

We're a moral country and have a moral foreign policy. We give tremendous amounts of aid in help reconstructing countries that tried to kill us (Germany, Japan, Afghanistan, Iraq etc.), we engage in humanitarian interventions without regard to self-interest, and so on. How moral can you get?

You could end torture, supporting dictators and starting wars ,for a starter. How moral is that ?

[Sage Rat]

It is however a fact that actual interrogation experts consider torture worse than useless.
Someone actually linked the report (CIA report?) that evaluates the effectiveness of torture once. What it actually said is that torture is of no greater use for extracting information than basic interrogation techniques, for the grand majority of suspects. But regardless of any technique used, everything a hostile tells you is just as likely to be a lie.

It said no more and no less than that, as regards its efficacy. It is only useful against a minority of suspects, who otherwise will say nothing, and once induced to talk, they will be no more honest in their responses than using any other technique. It did recommend against the use of torture, but not due to it being worthless, but for being sufficiently minimally useful that the morality or bad press from it made it not necessarily worth the hassle.

Of course, if you don't care about morality or bad press....

[Lobohan]

We're a moral country and have a moral foreign policy. We give tremendous amounts of aid in help reconstructing countries that tried to kill us (Germany, Japan, Afghanistan, Iraq etc.), we engage in humanitarian interventions without regard to self-interest, and so on. How moral can you get?So when someone goes into your house and kills your dog and sets the place on fire, if they help you pick through the rubble for your photo albums, they're good?

[The Tooth]

Germany sank a few boats, if I recall, but didn't actually attack civilians and kill them en masse the way Bush did to Iraq.

Japan attacked a military target. Right or wrong, hardly an attempt to kill you. I don't care to look up how many Vietnamese civilians the US killed because I'm already in a shitty mood.

Iraq did not attack the United States, the United States attacked Iraq.

Afghanistan did not attack the United States, the United States attacked Afghanistan.

Also, torture.

I get the feeling Curtis is a kid staring into a snowglobe with the Statue of Liberty in it and making up intricate stories with no basis in reality.

[The Tao's Revenge]

Germany sank a few boats, if I recall, but didn't actually attack civilians and kill them en masse the way Bush did to Iraq.

I agree that the US has done much wrong, but it should be pointed out Germany did kill a bunch of civilians en masse. Millions of them, killed in a very agonizing way.

Bush was evil and incompetent, but not Hitler evil.

Japan attacked a military target. Right or wrong, hardly an attempt to kill you.

Again it should be pointed out Japan's war crimes in WWII were extremely grievous. I don't think mass rape by the US armed forces and death marches ever appeared in US middle east war plans.

[The Tooth]

I agree that the US has done much wrong, but it should be pointed out Germany did kill a bunch of civilians en masse. Millions of them.

Not Americans. Curtis said "they tried to kill us".

Again it should be pointed out Japan's war crimes in WWII were extremely grievous. I don't think mass rape by the US armed forces and death marches ever appeared in US middle east war plans.

Yes yes. See above.

[Huerta88]

The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/) seems like a good baseline.

Oh wait









Guess we fucked that one up.

F___d up by signing it, right?

The last part points out the silliness of it. "Laws" without enforcement mechanisms (or, that are on their face not capable of being enforced) are meaningless preening. And how could anyone, ever, enforce an obligation to guarantee that everyone, everywhere would have adequate resources or sufficient "well being?" Who defines those? Ad nauseum.

[The Tao's Revenge]

F___d up by signing it, right?

The last part points out the silliness of it. "Laws" without enforcement mechanisms (or, that are on their face not capable of being enforced) are meaningless preening. And how could anyone, ever, enforce an obligation to guarantee that everyone, everywhere would have adequate resources or sufficient "well being?" Who defines those? Ad nauseum.

Other developed countries have universal healthcare access, and social safety nets with higher happiness and health levels. Why can't the US manage it?

[Huerta88]

Other developed countries have universal healthcare access, and social safety nets with higher happiness and health levels. Why can't the US manage it?

The part I was mocking purports to guarantee more than that:

(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
This can't be taken seriously or everyone would quit tomorrow (and we'd have time for endless litigation over what "well-being" means -- I'd be first in line to argue it means "the government" will guarantee me whatever equivalent of hookers and blow floats my boat, else my "well being" is denied.

Jesus figured it out 2.000 years ago -- "the poor you will always have with you." That's both axiomatic statistically (there's always going to be a bottom 1/4, and they're always going to be somewhat to very unhappy about their relative status) and inherent in unequal distribution of human talents. Anyone who thinks they are going to guarantee eradication of poverty and equality of economic outcomes immediately identifies himself as a naif at best, a fool at worst. I think the drafters of that Universal Declaration were a little of both.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

Germany sank a few boats, if I recall, but didn't actually attack civilians and kill them en masse the way Bush did to Iraq.

Japan attacked a military target. Right or wrong, hardly an attempt to kill you. I don't care to look up how many Vietnamese civilians the US killed because I'm already in a shitty mood.

Iraq did not attack the United States, the United States attacked Iraq.

Afghanistan did not attack the United States, the United States attacked Afghanistan.

Also, torture.

I get the feeling Curtis is a kid staring into a snowglobe with the Statue of Liberty in it and making up intricate stories with no basis in reality.

Not Americans. Curtis said "they tried to kill us".



Yes yes. See above.

I meant not just before the declaration of war but during the war in general where the Japanese, Germans, and so on hardly did much to endear them to us.

[The Tooth]

Then you should have said that they hardly did anything to endear themselves to you. I didn't know you were heavily, heavily exaggerating.

[Der Trihs]

Someone actually linked the report (CIA report?) that evaluates the effectiveness of torture once. What it actually said is that torture is of no greater use for extracting information than basic interrogation techniques, for the grand majority of suspects. But regardless of any technique used, everything a hostile tells you is just as likely to be a lie.

It said no more and no less than that, as regards its efficacy. It is only useful against a minority of suspects, who otherwise will say nothing, and once induced to talk, they will be no more honest in their responses than using any other technique. It did recommend against the use of torture, but not due to it being worthless, but for being sufficiently minimally useful that the morality or bad press from it made it not necessarily worth the hassle.
And then there's all the actual interrogation professionals, who regard it as outright destructive; it ruins a subject for further interrogation. What you are describing sounds like a fairly standard right wing style whitewash; they can't come up with any positive arguments or evidence to support their position, so they go with the old "everybody and everything is just as bad as us" routine. The Republicans and their supporters do it all the time.

And why would you trust a bunch of torturers about the effectiveness of torture?

[Sage Rat]

F___d up by signing it, right?

The last part points out the silliness of it. "Laws" without enforcement mechanisms (or, that are on their face not capable of being enforced) are meaningless preening.
What's the enforcement mechanism of the 2nd Amendment? The Supreme Court, yes?

Whether you like it or not, treaties entered into by the Federal government become the law of the land (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Six_of_the_United_States_Constitution). We are constitutionally obligated to comply with the Univeral Declaration of Human Rights, just as we are constitutionally obligated to do things like only allowing the president to be voted into office by the public or to only search a person's house if a warrant has been issued. If you have no particular issue with the optionality of the Law of the Land, then by all means, go ahead and argue that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights doesn't matter.

I seem to recall that the Declaration of Independence had a bit of text about "all men being equal". That wasn't actually true for another two hundred years (and still doesn't include children), but it was a driving aim, and something which likely influenced many decisions of the Supreme Court, helping us to get to where we are today. That's not to say that the UDHR is an enviable document, nor that it should have been signed, just that it isn't a nothing document. If it isn't influencing our national policy, then the Supreme Court is not doing its job.

[The Tao's Revenge]

The part I was mocking purports to guarantee more than that:


This can't be taken seriously or everyone would quit tomorrow (and we'd have time for endless litigation over what "well-being" means -- I'd be first in line to argue it means "the government" will guarantee me whatever equivalent of hookers and blow floats my boat, else my "well being" is denied.

Jesus figured it out 2.000 years ago -- "the poor you will always have with you." That's both axiomatic statistically (there's always going to be a bottom 1/4, and they're always going to be somewhat to very unhappy about their relative status) and inherent in unequal distribution of human talents. Anyone who thinks they are going to guarantee eradication of poverty and equality of economic outcomes immediately identifies himself as a naif at best, a fool at worst. I think the drafters of that Universal Declaration were a little of both.

Tell that to Norway.

[Sage Rat]

And then there's all the actual interrogation professionals, who regard it as outright destructive;

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/KUBARK_Counterintelligence_Interrogation#VIII._The_Non-Coercive_Counterintelligence_Interrogation

Given that we do not know how often torture has been used, nor how effective it was, and no one can legally admit to having done it, the question of its efficacy is moot. There is circumstantial evidence that it was an effective tool for Israel, but that is circumstantial. Ultimately, I've looked for any actual data, and have found none. I am sure that you have expended far less effort than I have to find data.

[Sage Rat]

Whether you like it or not, treaties entered into by the Federal government become the law of the land (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Six_of_the_United_States_Constitution). We are constitutionally obligated to comply with the Univeral Declaration of Human Rights, just as we are constitutionally obligated to do things like only allowing the president to be voted into office by the public or to only search a person's house if a warrant has been issued.

Ahah, apparently when we signed it, we did not sign it as a treaty. My post was in error.

[weaselfish]

Germany sank a few boats, if I recall, but didn't actually attack civilians and kill them en masse the way Bush did to Iraq.

Technically, Germany declared war on us, shortly after Pearl Harbor.

Japan attacked a military target. Right or wrong, hardly an attempt to kill you. I don't care to look up how many Vietnamese civilians the US killed because I'm already in a shitty mood.

Something being a "military target" doesn't negate the fact that they attacked us and "tried to kill us."

Iraq did not attack the United States, the United States attacked Iraq.

No argument there.

Afghanistan did not attack the United States, the United States attacked Afghanistan.

True, to certain level. But Afghanistan was complacently hosting the organization that did, and certainly wasn't (capable of?) taking action to do something about it. Not that I'm 100% onboard with the war in Afghanistan, but our justifications were certainly much more concrete than with Iraq. Now our intentions...gut feelings tell me a certain pipeline and geopolitical strategy were heavy factors.

It's a tough case to make that the United States is a moral force in the world. Certainly there are a number of things already mentioned is this discussion that undermine our morality. On the discussion of aid, yes the United States is far and away the largest benefactor in terms of international aid. That being said, we are also falling short here on another UN commitment we signed onto in terms of .7% of GDP dedicated to aid (see UN Millennium Goals).

If I had to some it up, like virtually all governments in the world we act in our own interest. I believe we have good intentions and we are moral when it suits us. Usually when there is money on the table, we are going to throw our weight into the struggle to get it. My gut feeling isn't that the US as a people is amoral, it's that the wealthy elite that run this country want to stay wealthy, elite, and running this country.

[ajb867]

Most countries don't. Because what we did was stupid.
*SNIP*



Even you are too smart to actually believe this. Nice poker face though.

[The Tooth]

Technically, Germany declared war on us, shortly after Pearl Harbor.

Yes. How many American cities did they bomb? They tried to defeat your military (and ours, by the way), but that's a far cry from "trying to kill you" as a nation as per Curtis' claims.

Something being a "military target" doesn't negate the fact that they attacked us and "tried to kill us."

No, it completely contradicts it. How many American cities did Japan attack? I mean really attack, blitzkrieg style.


True, to certain level. But Afghanistan was complacently hosting the organization that did, and certainly wasn't (capable of?) taking action to do something about it. Not that I'm 100% onboard with the war in Afghanistan, but our justifications were certainly much more concrete than with Iraq.

That's not the issue. The issue is whether or not they tried to kill you. Seems a pretty roundabout way of doing it, if that was Afghanistan's plan as per Curtis' claims.

Now our intentions...gut feelings tell me a certain pipeline and geopolitical strategy were heavy factors.

Actually I think the intent was honest, believe it or not. It was hamfisted and ineffective, but I can certainly see why it took place. It was and is just entirely the wrong approach.

It's a tough case to make that the United States is a moral force in the world.

No kidding!

If I had to some it up, like virtually all governments in the world we act in our own interest. I believe we have good intentions and we are moral when it suits us.

If you're not moral when it suits you, you're not moral.

Usually when there is money on the table, we are going to throw our weight into the struggle to get it. My gut feeling isn't that the US as a people is amoral, it's that the wealthy elite that run this country want to stay wealthy, elite, and running this country.

I've found that one-on-one, Americans are singularly nice people. Mind you, I haven't been to the States in 12 years, and things can change.

[Der Trihs]

Even you are too smart to actually believe this. Nice poker face though.Ah, a personal insult and unsupported criticism in place of an actual argument.

And as it happens, yes I find it perfectly plausible that an Administration known worldwide for its stupidity will do things that other nations are simply not stupid enough to do. Things that Bush I and Clinton weren't stupid enough to do, for that matter.

[gonzomax]

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/KUBARK_Counterintelligence_Interrogation#VIII._The_Non-Coercive_Counterintelligence_Interrogation

Given that we do not know how often torture has been used, nor how effective it was, and no one can legally admit to having done it, the question of its efficacy is moot. There is circumstantial evidence that it was an effective tool for Israel, but that is circumstantial. Ultimately, I've looked for any actual data, and have found none. I am sure that you have expended far less effort than I have to find data.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition_by_the_United_States Extraordinary rendition was only flying prisoners to other countries to get horribly tortured and sometimes killed. Do we have no responsibility for that . Can you actually pretend that we don't torture?
The experts say it does not work and it diminishes us. But some have to try and justify anything we do.

[ajb867]

Location: California

How do you sleep at night Der Trihs? Do you actually believe what you are saying? Are you going to be the positive change the "Administration" desperately needs? I mean there is no way a quick google search would indicate other countries depriving basic human rights from their own citizens or non citizens right?

[Sage Rat]

The experts say it does not work
The experts to whom you choose to listen say that. I've seen an even body on either side of the argument, and no data to support either side.

[Tristan]

Most countries don't. Because what we did was stupid.

Oh, nonsense. America is more villainous than many other countries; most countries haven't even bothered to build the kinds of military and other resources necessary to match us that way.

:rolleyes: Iraq didn't "try to kill us", that was a war of pure conquest and malice on our part. And we've left them in ruins and demanded they pay us for the privilege of being bombed and tortured and slaughtered. And the "reconstruction" consisted primarily of funneling government money into Republican-tied businesses while doing nothing useful. As for Afghanistan, we haven't accomplished anything there but sit around while torturing and killing people nearly at random.

And of course we train and support worldwide torturers, terrorists, death squads and dictators.


I give up.

If you think the mere act of building a military is villanous than you live in a comic book.

What sucks is you make some valid points, but they are buried in the nonsensical super-partisan garbage that you post. Yes, we should not have invaded Iraq. That invasion was handled badly, and the "occupation" (which of course was no such thing, but I digress) was flawed as well. But your statements here about slaughtering them en masse is foolish in the extreme. However, your stance on rooting for insurgents to kill US soldiers is well known.

I think I'm done with trying to make you see facts, or at least take them into account. Goodbye. I will miss your excellent posts in CS, for what it's worth.

[Ximenean]

"Is this the right forum for an argument?"

[Der Trihs]

I give up.

If you think the mere act of building a military is villanous than you live in a comic book.:rolleyes: No, I didn't say that or even imply it. I was pointing out that it is impossible to perform many of the "villainous" acts that America has committed, unless you actually have such things as a massive military capable of threatening & conquering faraway countries. So the people who keep trying to pretend that other countries are doing the same evil things that America is are wrong, because those other countries haven't even built what they'd need to in order to commit such acts in the first place.

[Latro]

Now our intentions...gut feelings tell me a certain pipeline and geopolitical strategy were heavy factors.


Actually I think the intent was honest, believe it or not. It was hamfisted and ineffective, but I can certainly see why it took place. It was and is just entirely the wrong approach.


No, the Afghans were quite willing to hand Osama over, after 9/11.
Yet this was brushed aside and kept quiet.
The US leadership wanted an invasion, not a head on a platter.

[BrainGlutton]

Where is the Morality?

Next to the Frequency, Kenneth.