So if they voted Al Sadr president that would be cool?
Somehow I don’t think that would blow over too well.
Yeah, that election Saddam held, didn’t seem to do him much good.
So they’re free to have a democracy. How about if they decide, democratically, to become a terrorist state? How about they welcome in Al Qaeda with open arms, democratically, of course? How about them becoming the New and Improved! Taliban? Or if they decide that they don’t prefer democracy? What if they decide to become commies and throw in their lot with North Korea? Are they free to do that? Or would it then be time for another intervention (just say no to anti-Americanism, Billy)?
Hold on - where did I even suggest that? With respect to Iraq, I’ve always contended that the main obstacle to democracy isn’t any inability of any one of the three major ethnic/religious groups to handle democracy; the problem is that all three of them share one country, and hate each other’s guts.
Can’t see why a country like Egypt couldn’t handle democracy, though. We give them billions in aid each year. Can’t see where we’ve used that to nudge them towards democracy.
Sounds like everybody has the right to blow everyone else up. So Osama bin Laden’s wrecking crew, on 9/11/01, was by your standard, acting within its rights.
Or does this ‘rights’ stuff only apply to organizations characteristic of the pre-9/11 mindset?
Hey, I generally don’t even regard Brutus’ posts as worth answering. 
I didn’t think I was implying that I took your position less than seriously. (Even if it’s a position that scares the shit out of me, you are forthright in your espousal of it.) My apologies if I came across differently.
I know where you’re coming from. I got my hopes up in 1992 too, although (once burned, twice shy) I didn’t work for or vote for Perot.
I hope you don’t mind if I respond to this, even though it wasn’t directed at me. Because I too consider myself an interventionist; we’re just in very different places on (a) how often humanitarian intervention can improve things more than marginally; and (b) this business of ‘right’, which I’m not sure I understand what you mean by it, exactly, but I’d certainly frame differently the question of when intervention is justified. I’d go into more detail on that, but it’s late. Later, maybe.
There’s very little sarcasm in my last post. Hyperbole, I’ll cop to, but not even much of that. Furthermore, I could make the argument(s) that US actions as concern Iraq are imperalism, that we likely won’t leave, that there won’t be a democracy in Iraq, or that Iraqis won’t be free to stand in opposition to the US.
But I won’t. It still misses my point. I found one of John Corrado’s posts to be chilling. In particular, it was this (in slightly edited form):
If something is deemed to be “in the US’s interests”, that is sufficient for military action. Once again, I will give (both you and John Corrado) the benefit of the doubt, and say that it is possible that, if presented with particular examples (e.g., it is in the US’s interest to “wipe out Islamic fundamentalism” or “have cheap oil” or “allow Muslim women to dress in Western garb” or “force Muslims to eat pork”) you will:
But that isn’t the stance you and your ilk are taking. Instead, no qualifiers supplied, no reservations. Now, that sentiment is scary enough, bordering as it does on zealotry and fascism. Once you concede that there are limits to what has been called in this thread “the right to invade”, then one can begin to argue what those limits are. Until then, you are part of the problem that zev_steinhardt was pitting when he began this thread. Lest you think I’m engaging in hyperbole again, I give you this:
No, that’s not our right. Just because we have a democracy does not mean that we can force one on other people. Do you not see the irony of it? What kind of biblical, “my god is the only true god” den of iniquity did you crawl out of? Ah, I see…one close to the one the 9/11 hijackers crawled out of.
What made this all the more startling to me (and caused me to comment in the first place) was that I didn’t see it coming. I was trundling happily down that slippery slope, reading John Corrado’s posts, saying “hmm…I disagree, but OK”, while not recognizing back at the summit that I should have realized on what foundations the hill was actually constructed. Hopefully, I’ll retain this lesson.
I don’t know what you expect me to say, but the answer to all of these questions is “Yes, absolutely”, if that was the uncoerced will of the majority. Why did you think that I would answer differently? I defend the right of the KKK to hold their insane rallys too, even though they are anathma to everything I believe in, everything I believe that America stands for, and I think the world would be a much better place if they’d all drink Draino cocktails. It’s fucking easy to defend the rights of your friends to do something that you agree with, the true test of weather you believe what you are saying is when you are willing to defend those same rights for people you don’t agree with or find repugnent.
Now, were they to follow the course you’ve outlined above, I would absolutely advocate a hands off policy. If, once we got rid of a dictator imposed upon them by force and they chose to set up a totalitarian government of their own free will, than that is their right, and we should leave them alone. Of course, if they become the new Taliban, and another 9/11 happens, then all bets are off, but as long as they behave themselves, they can have any type of government they want. That’s what everyone is missing here: “forcing” democracy on them doesn’t mean forcing them to set up a puppet government and adopt the U.S. Constitution, it means “forcing” (and that’s a bad word, but I’ll stick with it since it’s what we’ve been using) the opportunity for them to chose their own form of government on them.
This, of course, should be surrounded by <Inigo Montoya> tags, not <feszik>. I’m so embarrassed. Mea culpa.
Amen. Ultimately the key is to take away their prize. They wouldn’t care so much about be President (or Senator or Congressman) if being President (or Senator or Congressman) wasn’t all that important.
Lord, imagine a world where our leaders were chosen not because they prominse to give us stuff, but because they pledged their lives to maximizing our freedoms.
sigh
<Bill Gates, circa 1985>It’s this great new OS I’ve developed. It allows people to have multiple windows open at any given time.</Bill Gates, circa 1985>
Why, looky here Pa. We’s got us a man of principle. The thing is, it seems to me that principles resemble the old saw regarding wine and sewage. You know, add a teaspoon of wine to sewage and you still have sewage. But, add a teaspoon of sewage to wine, and you have - sewage.
It’s unfortunate that, in principle, the principal principle put forth doesn’t really qualify as a principle. It can be summed up as the ends justify the means (with a little might makes right thrown in for good measure), which doesn’t quite carry the mantle of pristine ideals usually associated with principles. And here we have the teaspoon of sewage that spoils the wine. As evidence of how the sewage permeates your stance, I quote (post #157):
And also:
Continually bleating, “as long as it turns out OK, it was justified” doesn’t quite reach the lofty standard to which you aspire. But hey - they’re free to do whatever they want, so long as they’re “behaving themselves”. Right?
Oh, and some of this post might be construed as sarcasm.
All of that post might be construed as garage. If you want to argue that my ethics are situational, have at it, but bring facts and logic along. Trying to imply that what I said equals “might makes right” or “The ends justify the means” completely ignores the substance of my post in favor of your demagoguery. Sorry, I’m not going to play that game. Try again with facts, up here where the big boys play. If you’re not up to the task, go back to your blog where legions of pre-teen girls are waiting to squeel over your “cleverness”.
Oh, yea, I completely forgot. You have dodged the question I asked above. I want an answer. To reiterate:
Do you want to answer, or do you want to keep ducking the question? I awain patiently.
OK, so some of the wording of that last post was over the top. I apologize for that, particularly the sewage metaphor (although it seemed reasonable at the time, perhaps “feet of clay” or “a house built on sand” would have been better). It was late, I couldn’t sleep, yadda, yadda. I’m not fond of giving excuses. If this was in GD, I’d like to think that I would have toned it down. However, I don’t see where it was fundamentally wrong. To wit:
I’m not ducking the question; indeed, I’d say that I’m staying on target and that you are throwing a red herring into the debate. Perhaps part of the problem here is that you and John Corrado have agreed that you can speak for one another; most of my responses are directed his way. The question you ask is historical; an (incomplete) list of military actions and how they turned out. As I said, it misses my point. Furthermore, I ceded that we’ll say that the US has “done good” across the board. It makes no difference; my point is not one of a practical nature, it is one of principle. The principle being that no sovereign nation has the right to invade another sovereign nation just because it’s in their “interest” to do so.
I’m not sure what “facts” I could bring that would address this. As to the “substance” of your post (which one?), I’ve yet to see one in this thread that gets to the heart of it. Yes, we’re in Iraq. Yes, we removed a dictator (although I’m not convinced that, on balance, we’ve achieved more good than harm; I don’t know how one measures that). Yes, I think it would be good for the US (and possibly the world) if a stable democracy was set up in the middle east. And finally, yes, I hope that whoever wins the election will stop pussy-footing around, use whatever means are necessary to stabilize the area, and avoid political decisions where military ones are required. Nonetheless, I’ll reiterate - I find it chilling that anyone would proclaim that “the US has the (absolute) right to invade any country based solely on self-interest”. How this does not qualify as “might makes right” is beyond me. Furthermore, how pointing to past instances that may (or may not) have turned out well is not “the ends justify the means” is also beyond me.
I’m certainly willing to listen, if you’d care to explain.
Speaking of not answering direct questions, **John Corrado ** has not answered mine. I’d also like answers but won’t get any. That’s fine. Nobody can expect an explicit Bush supporter to be susceptible to rational persuasion at this stage and I certainly didn’t.
My questions clearly led to one conclusion, one that a person of average intellect could forsee, one that John Corrado accordingly refuses to entertain. That’s ok.
The aim of my questions was not persuasion. Instead I wished to discover how someone could hold an opinon patently in contradiction with the facts. I now know the answer in at least one case and so am satisfied.
The answer is that it needs a disciplined refusal to entertain facts that inconvenience John C’s comfortable world view.
I guess what it boils down to for me DS is “consent of the governed”. No, I certainly don’t think we should attack Britain if we deem it “in our best interests” to do so (although such an attack would fall under the umbrella of national soveriegnty. We could do it. We wouldn’t be right to do it). When you’re talking about a dictator or other totalitarian regime, however, that goes right out the window. A dictator is simply the biggest bully in the pack. His people didn’t chose him, he was imposed upon them. Since that’s the case, he’s got no recourse if someone bigger and stronger comes along. Crying “I’m a soverign nation” when the reality is that all you are is a brutal, powerhungry dictator doesn’t cut it in my mind. When a government-of whatever type, the people can vote in a dictatorship if they want-is freely chosen by the population, that’s when it becomes inviolable. Outside of that, I say hell yes we can interfere all we want with a foreign nation.
Nicaragua (multiple times)
Guatemala (in spades)
Haiti
Cuba
El Salvador
(And, of course, I would argue that Vietnam would have probably been OK, in the long run–resembling Eastern Europe with a period of socialist dominance followed by a “coming out” at the end of the Cold War rather than being a battleground and a destroyer of people, as it was–if the U.S. had not imposed a puppet at the time that the country was supposed to have been holding elections or, better, if the U.S. had made a serious effort to fight colonialism following WWI (instead of practicing it with gusto in the Philipines and Central America).)
(I’d have included the Philipines on my list, but it is not certain that would incontrovertbly have been worse had we failed to kill the tens of thousands of victims of our actions–there is a remote chance that they would have killed each other just as well or been overun by the Japanes or Chinese factions. We did bad, but we can’t prove we made it worse.)
Thank you for staying on track this time. I’ll totally stay away from the fact that our current president was not elected by the will of the people, as I don’t want to get into partisan sniping. (Besides, I don’t have a big problem with the result; barring a few questionable steps, mostly as concern various judicial actions/decisions, the system reached an agreed upon result. Thank goodness Gore was man enough to step down.) You chastised me for not “bringing logic and facts”. As I said, I don’t know what “facts” I could bring to this discussion. As to logic, here you go. Beyond the red herring I believe I’ve avoided, and assuming I’m interpreting your response correctly, a contradiction:
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.)
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:
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. And furthermore, it rests on the fact that the US is
“bigger and stronger” and can depose a dictator at will. Basically, that we can bully our way into power. Wasn’t it you that mentioned that we shouldn’t invade North Korea due to the possible consequences? (If not, I apologize for the misattribution.)
Perhaps I’ve misstated your position. Perhaps you would fall back to accepting that imminent danger is the only justifiable reason for pre-emptive action, even though that would contradict some of your earlier statements. (And again, I’ll caution against using the Bush administration’s definition. <Inigo Montoya>You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.<Inigo Montoya>) I stand ready and willing to be corrected…
Thank you, tomndebb. I was hoping someone would follow up on this, as I’m not conversant enough in History to back up any assertions I might make.
Remember Goldwater in '64 ? Many of us bought the spin that WWIII was inevitable if he was elected. Instead we got …Vietnam !
Truth is the first casualty in an election.