# That's it. I have HAD IT!! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 26, 2004, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-it-i-have-had-it/271190 "2004-10-26T03:58:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2004, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-it-i-have-had-it/271190/181 "2004-10-30T21:14:56Z")
Tom, I was unaware that the US had invaded any of those countries in the last 100 years, thank you for pointing it out to me. Seems kinda strange to leave all of those wars out of the history books, doesn’t it? Must be the liberal media or something, right? As a point of fact, you’ve given good examples of where the U.S. has not invaded, but has rather thrown it’s weight behind one facton or another (or failed to after promising aid-ask those poor saps at the Bay of Pigs) with unfortunate results. While I never claimed that my list was exhaustive, thanks for proving my point. > [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > This is not a question of whether we’d “be right” or not, which is using the wrong definition of “right”. John Corrado’s position (as I’m assigning it) is that the US has the Right to invade a sovereign nation under any and all circumstances. (I’d add in the “interests” part, but it doesn’t make a difference to the principle.) Might makes right, which is what I find chilling. Your position, I believe, is that the US has the Right to interfere with a foreign nation, so long as its government is not freely chosen by the people. Britain’s leaders are freely chosen by the people. And yet, according to the first quote, the US can attack Britain if it is deemed to be in its best interests? (The should is incidental and an example of “dissembling and disclaiming” I referred to in earlier posts.) I think you’re missing the point. Every country has the right to declare war on or invade another. That’s one of the perogatives of being a nation. Holland could send it’s navy over here and shell New York City if it wanted. The hard part is that when a country wages war, it has to deal with the results (which in this case would likely be the sinking of the Dutch navy and a sudden upswing in business for Amsterdam hookers after the Marines landed) > [@](#): > > How about a dose of begging the question? Again, if I understand it correctly, your position is that the US has the right to interfere with a foreign nation, so long as its government was not freely chosen by the people. Since, according to my understanding, “the people” overthrew the Shah of Iran, is the current fundamentalist regime acceptable? I don’t know your position on Iran, but I’d suspect the answer is no. But, it was the will of the people, which is “inviolable”! Oh, I see: Iran was a religious uprising where the church siezed power. Even though the people were whipped into a frenzy to oust the Shah, they were never subsiquently given a vote to determine the form the new government would take, and they don’t have free elections now. > [@](#): > > See - a house of sand (I’m avoiding the sewage). The structure you build your house on is that the will of the people is inviolable. However, its foundation is not the principle of sovereignty. Instead, it’s the (ill-formed and unstated) assumption that the will of the people is equivalent with a stable democracy, which in turn conincides with US interests. Should the people choose a fascist regime that at some point is in opposition to US interests…whoops! We get the right to invade! It’s the escape hatch built into the assumption. You’ve got it wrong. I think already answerd this in this thread. See post #166. You still haven’t adressed what I said there except with sarcasm. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2004, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-it-i-have-had-it/271190/182 "2004-10-30T22:13:12Z")
> [@WeirdDave](#): > > Tom, > > I was unaware that the US had invaded any of those countries in the last 100 years, thank you for pointing it out to me. Seems kinda strange to leave all of those wars out of the history books, doesn’t it? Must be the liberal media or something, right? As a point of fact, you’ve given good examples of where the U.S. has not invaded, but has rather thrown it’s weight behind one facton or another (or failed to after promising aid-ask those poor saps at the Bay of Pigs) with unfortunate results. While I never claimed that my list was exhaustive, thanks for proving my point. Are you _seriously_ going to pretend that you are (or are you genuinely) ignorant of the U.S. invasions of Nicaragua 1907, 1910, 1912-1933 occupation Cuba 1912, 1917 - 1933 occupation Haiti 1914 - 1934 occupation and Guatemala 1954? (You _might_ be able to knock El Salvador off my list of invasions by ignoring our 1932 gunboats and by pretending that we were not the dominant supplier of arms, training, and special troops during the 1980s, but I would consider the mining of a neutral harbor as an act of war.) Note that I left off three prior invasions of Nicaragua that occurred prior to your 100 year window. I also left off all the “interventions” in Panama, Honduras, Domincan Republic, ands several other locations on the grounds that they were _closer_ to your claim of just helping the bully that we liked better. I also left out the various “interventions” in Mexico and a couple of places where I doubt that the U.S. actively made the situation worse (although it rarely helped). To pretend that I have made your point simply by pretending that events never occurred (or that your “100 years” began in 1980) is not a very effecrtive tactic when the history is out there for anyone to discover. As to why youi would post on the topic from a position of ignorance, I am not sure of your rationale. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2004, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-it-i-have-had-it/271190/183 "2004-10-30T23:21:10Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Are you _seriously_ going to pretend that you are (or are you genuinely) ignorant of the U.S. invasions of > Nicaragua 1907, 1910, 1912-1933 occupation > Cuba 1912, 1917 - 1933 occupation > Haiti 1914 - 1934 occupation > and Gtemalaua 1954? > \ > To pretend that I have made your point simply by pretending that events never occurred (or that your “100 years” began in 1980) is not a very effecrtive tactic when the history is out there for anyone to discover. As to why youi would post on the topic from a position of ignorance, I am not sure of your rationale. Our occupations of Cuba were in accord with the Platt Amendment. Since troops went to Cuba in acordance with treaty, I don’t consider it a “military intervention” per se. After Cuba terminated the agreement, we didn’t go in anymore. Nicaragua was much the same, we interviened on behalf of the Nicaraguan President. We left when a free election was held( although it took 15 years!). Arguably, things got worse when dictators siezed power after we had gone-Batista and Somoza. Our presence prevented that from happening earlier. Haiti: I forgot about that one. You’re right there. I thought you were talking about 1994, and that wasn’t an invasion at all. Guatemala was the CIA, wasn’t it? That’s not exactly what I’m talking about either. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2004, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-it-i-have-had-it/271190/184 "2004-10-31T04:45:00Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > Every country has the right to declare war on or invade another. That’s one of the perogatives of being a nation. This is exactly the point on which we disagree. Evidently, I’ll have to leave it at that. > [@Weirddave](#): > > Iran was a religious uprising where the church siezed power. Even though the people were whipped into a frenzy to oust the Shah, they were never subsiquently given a vote to determine the form the new government would take, and they don’t have free elections now. I suspect you know as little as I do about Iran. Evidently, at least according to post #5 in [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=283862) thread, that’s incorrect. > [@Weirddave](#): > > You’ve got it wrong. I think already answerd this in this thread. See post #166. You still haven’t adressed what I said there except with sarcasm. What you said there is a red herring. You limit the scope of what you mean by “military intervention” and “freely elected government” to such an extent that the principle I’m discussing is no longer a principle, but a triviality. (Note that I’m saying the actions themselves are trivial, just the principle on which you rely.) Refer to part #1 of this post. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2004, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-it-i-have-had-it/271190/185 "2004-10-31T06:11:20Z")
> [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > This is exactly the point on which we disagree. Evidently, I’ll have to leave it at that. Fine, we disagree. You’re wrong, but I’m not going to argue with you about it, it’s pointless. I am curious, however. By what logic do you conclude that a soverign nation does not have the right to wage war? > [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > I suspect you know as little as I do about Iran. Evidently, at least according to post #5 in [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=283862) thread, that’s incorrect. I am hardly an expert on Iran, but I do know a little something about it. Read the last part of the post you linked. The real power is held by a council of mullahs, and they can do pretty much what they want. Communist countries had “elections” too, remember? > [@Digital Stimulus](#): > > What you said there is a red herring. You limit the scope of what you mean by “military intervention” and “freely elected government” to such an extent that the principle I’m discussing is no longer a principle, but a triviality. Well, you got that right. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2004, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-it-i-have-had-it/271190/186 "2004-10-31T12:49:46Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > > [@RT](#): > > > > Originally Posted by RTFirefly > > Considering how much of “the information they had at the time” was the information they set up shops like the Office of Special Plans to give them, so that there’d be someone to give them the answers they were looking for, it does kinda come back to belief. > > Why is it that you always try and widen the discussion? Unless you can show me evidence that every professional intelligence officer who served under Clinton, Bush Sr, Reagan, Carter, etc…was replaced with Bush sycophants, I’m gonna have to call bullshit on this one. The debate at the time wasn’t _if_ SH had WMD, it was the best way to deal with that fact. Quite a few people on your side of the fence argued against the war not because SH didn’t have WMD, but because they though it should be handled other ways, including you. I think almost everyone was surprised that he _didn’t_. Exactly how is this widening the discussion? Recall the nature of the threat: that Saddam had WMDs, _and_ was itching to hand them over to terrorists who would then use them on us. It always took both parts to add up to a threat. If Saddam didn’t have WMDs, no threat. If he had them, but wasn’t about to hand them to a bunch of crazed loons who weren’t his sons, then no threat. At any rate, the crack Bush intel-invent crew invented intel in both categories. They invented Saddam’s nuclear threat, which Bush and Cheney - especially Cheney - hyped to high heaven. (Nukes are still the only _true_ weapon of mass destruction; bio and chem weapons are likely to kill dozens, perhaps hundreds, not hundreds of thousands. We’ve already lost the equivalent of the victims of a passel of bio/chem attacks in Iraq.) And they invented bogus connections between Saddam and terrorists. Including Zarqawi, [who we probably could have offed before the war](http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB109866031609354178-IdjgYNhlaR3n52paIKIaKmGm4,00.html). > [@](#): > > He had them. He’d used them in the past. Why would he get rid of them and then still refuse to show the UN that he’d done so? Beats the fuck out of me. Really? Then you flunk the IQ test, history-boy. Got rid of them because he was scared of us; preserved ambiguity about it because he didn’t want to let his neighbors (especially Iran) know how weak he was. > [@Weirddave](#): > > > [@RT](#): > > > > Let me take a simple example: Sunnis, Shi’ites, and Kurds. So far, our rather significant presence in Iraq has kept these divisions from looming as large as they might have otherwise, but it’s hard to see exactly how “democracy” is going to work there, given these rather intense divisions. > > I agree that it’s a big, big issue, however you always bring it up as a reason to do nothing “It’s gonna be hard, we shouldn’t try”. You flunk the reading-comprehension test too: I was bringing this up, not as an example of why we shouldn’t invade (although I admit it works well for that too) but as an example of the Administration pretending a problem _doesn’t even exist_. If the Administration had publicly discussed this problem ahead of time and explained their strategy for dealing with it, _then_ it would have been a matter of whether or not one felt their strategy was credible. _But they never had strategies for dealing with problems they didn’t believe in the existence of._ > [@](#): > > I think the terrorists themselves are going to be the answer to this one (I refuse to call them insurgents, because they are being run from Tehran). You _sure_ you were a history major? Sheesh. The Sunni insurgents in Fallujah and Ramadi and Samarra are “being run from Tehran”. Can I have some of what you’re smoking? There’s plenty of reason to believe that even the Shi’ite insurgents would lose a lot of street cred if they were taking orders from Iran; remember, these two countries were at war for a decade, not very long ago, with plenty of loss of life on both sides. > [@](#): > > For all of our concern over U.S. loses in Iraq, for every one of ours, dozens of Iraqi citizens are being killed. As time goes by and the U.S. pushes ahead supporting the elections, continues to rebuild Iraq (which is going on all the time, in spite of the press’ reluctance to cover it for some reason), supports the newly elected government and continues to fight the terrorists, we will be come to be seen as more of an ally and less of an invader. Damn - I really _do_ want to know what you’re smoking! We’re killing dozens of them for every one of us that gets killed, and this is going to cause them to look on us more favorably as time goes by? Oh yeah, the reason the press doesn’t cover Iraq’s ‘rebuilding’ is that it isn’t safe for them to leave their hotels. It makes it hard for them to go out and get the story about how great things are going in the places that are too risky for them to visit. > [@](#): > > The key to this is going to be how we deal with the Iraqi government when it’s elected. We MUST,MUST,MUST take a real attitude of treating them as equal partners and NOT an attitude of treating them like puppets. If we can do this I am cautiously optimistic about the prospects for a long term stability in Iraq. The Iraqi people themselves will drive out the terrorists amongst them. That is a base from which a coalition between Kurds, Shi’ites and Sunnis can be built. ( unfortunately, I think the Sunnis might get rather the worst of it, being as how most of the “insurgents” are Sunni. ) Ah yes, the insurgents you say are being run from Shi’ite Iran. Whether we treat the Iraqi government as equal partners depends on who wins on Tuesday: Kerry will, Bush won’t. But the fundamental problem is that there’s little hope of a state monopoly on violence. If Al-Qaqaa is just a drop in the bucket, then there’s an essentially unlimited amount of bang floating around Iraq; any group that feels it’s coming out the loser (especially the Sunni Arabs) can be a danmed nasty sore loser. There is no strong central authority, at least not unless and until the Shi’ites defeat the Sunnis by force of arms - and possibly the Kurds too, if they can’t come to some agreement. And Sistani has repeatedly said ‘no’ to the idea of a federation-type arrangement. > [@Weirddave](#): > > > [@RT](#): > > > > Bush has waved them away with his magic wand by claiming that doubters believe that Iraqis are somehow less able to handle democracy than we are - the subtext being that those of us who see this gaping problem are really racists. > > Good for Bush. As I am neither a Bush supporter nor apologist, I am not sure what you want me to say here. I expect you to acknowledge that the war you supported wasn’t the war you would have liked to have seen, but the war that Bush was clearly going to give us: one based on lies, illusions, absurdly unrealistic assumptions, and a total absence of planning. > [@Weirddave](#): > > > [@RT](#): > > > > That’s what I mean by belief. If George W. Bush has ever said a single thing that acknowledges the very existence of these divisions as an obstacle on the road to Iraqi democracy, I’ve missed it - but it’s always been sitting there as a potential (some would say likely) deal-breaker. But unto those who believe, it doesn’t exist. Oh, me of little faith! > > Again, take it up with George W, but also realize that he is a politician in an extremely close election. Saying what you want him to say would be political suicide for him. It might give you warm fuzzies to hear him say it, but don’t hold your breath. No, I think it was a reasonable expectation for him (well, not necessarily him personally, but Rice or Powell or someone, speaking on his behalf) to address this _before the war_. Fuck the warm fuzzies; this is about counting the cost **before** you go into battle, rather than afterwards. > [@](#): > > You did miss it, because Viet Nam was eminently winnable, if Johnson had just let the military run the war. :splort: Yeah, we could have destroyed the country in order to save it. But the problem there was same as in Iraq: the insurgents weren’t easily distinguishable from the people we were supposedly there to help. And in neither situation were we willing to learn enough ahead of time to be able to distinguish one from the other on the ground, with predictable results. > [@](#): > > He “pulled in another direction” for political reasons (wasn’t willing to fully commit to fighting the war), and left us in an unwinnable situation. In fact, Johnson’s solution was very Kerry like: Commit enough troops to keep from losing, try to rally international support for the peace talks while at the same time being careful not to offend the Viet Cong and the north Vietnamese. And when, exactly, did Johnson get into peace talks? And how many years had we been fighting a full-fledged war over there before then? > [@](#): > > Look what finally kicked the peace talks into real motion: Nixon stepping up the bombing campaign. If we had gone in according to plan in the first place, the war would likely have been over by 68-69. And your point is…? > [@](#): > > Now you’re trying to change what I said. I called people “appeasement idiots” for advocating that anything substantial could be accomplished in Iraq just by talking to SH and helping the UN continue to chase it’s tail. I guess the no-fly zones and the sanctions were nothing. > [@](#): > > If we’d done that, SH would still be in power (and I bet he’d have some ties to Al Queda now, outcasts of a feather flock together ), Lybia wouldn’t have disarmed, Pakistan would still harbor a lot more terrorists cells than they do now, and we’d be sitting here waiting for the next terrorist attack, hoping that the rest of the world would give us permission to respond when it comes. Yes, Saddam would still be in power. (Omigod, look, it’s a boogeyman!) And just to keep even with you, I’ll “call bullshit” on the rest. They’re a bunch of assertions with no apparent connection to the subject at hand; they’re not even worth a counterargument, because there’s no argument to counter. > [@](#): > > All along I said the war part would be easy, but what happened afterwards would be hard. See that paragraph above where I outlined my hopes for the future of Iraq? We should have been there last year. The war was the right thing to do, but the execution of it, particularly the aftermath, has been extremely flawed. Before the war, there was no evidence of any planning for the aftermath. That was the war you supported, not your fantasy war. Deal with it. > [@](#): > > Most of the people with whom I’ve argued about this here fixate on the first half of that statement to vilify my views, and conveniently forget that the second half has been there all along. Guess the answer is, no cite. ---
**Author:** ![Digital\_Stimulus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@Digital\_Stimulus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Digital_Stimulus)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2004, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-it-i-have-had-it/271190/187 "2004-10-31T13:29:26Z")
> [@Weirddave](#): > > Fine, we disagree. You’re wrong, but I’m not going to argue with you about it, it’s pointless. I am curious, however. By what logic do you conclude that a soverign nation does not have the right to wage war? By a similar _principle_ that says I have no _Right_ to walk into your home and kill you if I deem it to be in my best interests. The difference as concerns individuals vs. nations is one of scale, not of principle. Red in tooth and claw, nasty and brutish, and all that… > [@Weirddave](#): > > Well, you got that right. Good. I’m glad you can admit to the trivialness of your viewpoint, inconsistent though you are in its application. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2004, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-it-i-have-had-it/271190/188 "2004-10-31T16:03:56Z")
> [@](#): > > Nicaragua was much the same, we interviened on behalf of the Nicaraguan President. We left when a free election was held( although it took 15 years!). I dunno. If we get to declare that an event is not an invasion just because we encouraged our puppet to invite us in, then the U.S. owes a serious and sincere apology to the former Soviet Union for all those nasty allegations of “invasion” that we hurled at them for their intervention in Afghanistan. Otherwise, we are simply using word games to hide our hypocrisy. Similarly, the Platt Amendment was simply the colonial imposition of our will with an intent to prevent anyone else’s interference. It was hardly a mutual agreement between peers. We pulled our troops out when FDR decided to try a different tack with “managing” Latin America and our failure to go back in had little to do with respecting Cuba’s sovereignty, _per se_. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/thats-it-i-have-had-it/271190.md?page=9)