I dunno RexDart that Quicktime clip didn’t seem to be neoanarchist “foaming at the mouth angry” protesters. Rather, they seemed to be well meaning people who simply hadn’t thought very carefully about the position they had espoused. “War is bad” seems to be intuitively a feel good position and I’m willing to bet that’s a fundamental basis for their opinion. I don’t think the people interviewed were special exceptions to the general anti-war fold.
Grim
And that’s the problem! If they were “special exceptions” (i.e. that most of the people who were anti-war had an argument other than simply “War is bad.”), then many of us would cut 'em some slack. Instead, the ones that get any publicity, all seem to be the folks who say, “Uh, war sucks!”
Not a single item on this list relates to the national security of the US. So this isn’t about protecting us. It’s about making the world a safer place for everyone?
That is certainly noble, perhaps even moral. If we had the support of the world behind us.
Who the hell are we to impose our belief structure on the rest of world?
It also might create the largest international anti-American backlash we have ever seen. It might then further threaten our national security.
And you call it moral?
He with might makes right? Is that your moral code? It’s OK to set the precedent that we can invade any country we like because with think they may harm us, at some point in the future? Sounds like the first step to world domination.
As I have posted before, I support the invasion of Iraq and changing the regime IF AND ONLY IF 1) the security of the US is in imminent risk and/or 2) the rest of the world (as evidenced by UN support) agrees that it is necessary.
Otherwise, we will inevitably (and with good reason) be accused of empirialism. And that will not benefit us in the long run.
#6 does.
Are you really such an isolationist? Should we drop out of the UN, the World Bank, the World Health Organization, NATO and other international organizations? Should we stop trying to promote human rights? Should we not have fought Hitler in WWII? Should we not have defended Europe from Soviet threats? Was the Marshall Plan a mistake? Should we not have imposed US-style democracy on Japan and Germany after WWII? Should we have done nothing about apartheit in South Africa? Should we ignore slavery in the Sudan?
Interesting. Even if there is an “imminent” threat to the US (e.g., the missles are pointed at us and ready to launch)–even in that instance, you contend that we must first run hat in hand to the UN for permission to defend ourselves.
Interesting. :dubious:
I just noticed you put an “and/or” in that statement, so maybe UN permission isn’t necessary when the missiles are on their way. All the same, and as december points out, you’re setting impossible standards for our foreign policy–not only in the present, but retroactively all the way back to the Barbary pirates.
I think AZCowboy must have been featured in this week’s Onion: “As an American, I’m getting sick and tired of other countries.”
Speaking of Vietnam, weren’t combat deaths somewhere in the neighborhood of 60,000, stretched out over ten years?
You are implying that more servicemen will be killed in the Iraq war than in any other conflict aside from WWI, WWII, and the Civil War.
Do I understand you correctly?
What the hell are you talking about? Please show me where I suggested isolationism? If we can gain the support of the world, through consensus building, I’m all for kicking his ass. Without it, we are imposing our (the US) interests over all others.
Sorry, I’m missing your point. What is impossible about the standards? They are:
What is impossible with that? It’s kinda like the golden rule, isn’t it?
No, the standards you demand for Iraq are explicitly: (1) the security of the US must be in imminent risk and/or (2) the rest of the world (as evidenced by UN support) agrees that it is necessary.
Since you are proposing the standards, please tell me which wars in US history have ever lived up to your principles. Feel free to take a good long look at the two world wars, for starters.
Is this some kind of setup?
In the WWII, we were attacked. I can’t see how this is a violation of the principles I set forth.
In WWI, while our homeland wasn’t attacked, our shipping was. And the power of the Axis threatened democracy worldwide - including our own.
Did I just get whooshed?
Harper’s Magazine printed just before the Persian Gulf War, that the military had ordered something like 50,000 body bags. Many people pointed to this and said that it meant that the US military was expecting 50,000 of our troops to die in the war. They didn’t stop to think that they might be used for the other sides bodies! It’s a meaningless factoid. Rommel proved in WW II that in desert warfare, the moment you obtain air superiority, the battle is yours. Last time I checked, the Iraqi air force wasn’t much of a threat to US planes.
In World War II, all we would have to do to avoid war would be let Japan have a free hand in Asia and refrain from putting an embargo on oil exports. We might have also decided not to meddle in Europe by eschewing all that “lend-lease” nonsense. Even Pearl Harbor was a one-shot deal. If we had announced our intention to keep to our own side of the Pacific and stop “imposing our belief structure” in Asia, we could have easily avoided war.
In WWI, an explicit stance of neutrality and respect for the belligerents’ respective blockades would have kept us out of that conflict.
So in both conflicts, there were clear alternatives to war and at no time was the US mainland threatened.
And as for the Axis and the “threat to democracy”: first, the Axis was in WWII, not WWI, and second, is there any clearer case of “imposing our belief structure” on the world than committing ourselves to defending democracy?
AZC I would argue that the US could have negotiated a non-aggression treaty with the Axis powers very easily in early 1942. We could have maintained our neutrality. Not until about 1946-49 would the Germans or Japanese have had long-range bombers or the capability to really get at the United States.
The Axis would have demanded that we cease all material support to the USSR and the UK – which was about it. Throw in the Aussies, etc… Hitler and Tojo had a pretty big empire at the time, they would have loved US isolationism until it was too late.
It is with some irony I note that we could have negotiated with the Nazis in Germany, the occupied Soviet Union, Vichy France, and Axis Iraq. Maybe we could have gotten weapons inspectors in to see Rommel.
It’s hard to imagine history being radically different. Of course, public opinion demanded that the US go to war after we were attacked. But, it’s fun to imagine what could have been. Maybe if the Japanese had spared Pearl Harbor and kept the attacks further West. If Roosevelt was more like Lindburgh. Pure speculation, but fun.
The problem with this is that, although the UN’s charter may be to promote world peace, that’s not the mission of every country’s ambassador. Their’s is to secure the best deal for their country, often at any cost.
Consequently, to them, September 11th wasn’t so much an act of war as it was an opportunity. An opportunity to knock the US down a few knotches in the eyes of the world and grab more for themselves. France & Germany both deal with and profit heavily from Iraq, yet we’re the ones going after their oil!?
We were attacked on 9/11 because we were the victim of our own success. We are the most powerful, prosperous, freest society the Earth has ever seen, but we’re not muslim so our success is evil.
The ‘interest’ we should impose on the rest of the world is that our strength & success comes from being a free, democratic, modern, western society.
Continue our policy of containment, inspection, and deterrence against Iraq. If they threaten or attack their neighbors, show any evidence of cooperating with or supporting Al Qaeda, or kick out the inspectors again, then military action should be contemplated in the context of the United Nations. Iraq does not currently threaten the United States, but plenty of other groups do. Iraq is a sideshow.
Rebuild Afghanistan. The war against Islamofascists is a war for the hearts and minds of the Muslim world. We must show them that life is better under our system than it would be under Islamic Fundamentalism. Do everything we can to build a safe, secular, multiethnic democracy there. The hawks who want to make Iraq a shining example of democracy have conveniently forgotten about the country we HAVE conquered. This is the carrot.
Pursue Al Qaeda with all available resources. This should be our first foreign policy priority. Follow up on our post-September 11 promise to take strong action against any country that supports them–including our “friends” in Saudi Arabia. This is the stick.
On a related note:
Put the screws on Pakistan. Northern Pakistan is a safe haven for Al Qaeda right now, and they’re attacking our forces in Afghanistan. This is not acceptable. They have nuclear weapons and are much, much more likely to give them to terrorists than Iraq. Tell them they must crack down on their northern territories or we will do it for them. Enlist the Indians (who are a multiethnic democracy and therefore should be our natural allies against dangerous military dictatorships) if we must.
Encourage the peaceful transition away from Fundamentalist Islamic government in Iran. This is happening on its own, but we should be doing all we can to help it along. This would be a slap in the face to our enemies, who see the Islamic revolution of the late 70’s as a great victory. Plus, it would be good for the region as a whole, would give us one less country to worry about, and is just the right thing to do.
North Korea…OK, you got me. I have no idea what to do about North Korea. But maybe we could start by PAYING SOME ATTENTION to the situation!
I disagree. With North Korea maybe throwing off the armistice, talking about nuclear war, and preemptive strikes we should publicly act as if they are bluffing and quietly pay very close attention. I think there is sufficient evidence that Rumsfeld and Bush are very closely monitoring the situation.
But I dont understand. Isnt that what the US is doing right now? There has not been any real hostilities, the US is merely building up forces around Iraq, negotiating with its border neighbors, obtaining UN resolutions with specific and unmistakable language and drawing NATO support. This is a clear indication that war is imminent not unstopable. All Iraq has to do is comply fully and unconditionally and this all goes away. This IS “forcing” Iraq to comply. If this “peaceful” but determined effort doesnt work, what else is there but war? Please note that there has been 12 years of other peaceful methods calling on Saddam to comply and he has not done so. If the threat of peace hasnt changed his mind, then maybe the threat of war will. If not the threat, then the real thing.
Beagle, I see no such evidence, but I really have nothing useful to offer on that subject except to say it scares the bejesus out of me. But hey, what doesn’t these days?
I forgot:
I’m either still missing your point, or just missing your logic. Sure, we could just let Saddam have his WoMD and avoid war. The fact that Hawaii wasn’t US mainland is a nit - they declared war on us, and they attacked our military installation at Pearl Harbor. I’m sorry if you fail to understand how those two actions constituted a threat to our national security.
Well, sure, we could have. Correct me if I am wrong, but the order of events were:
[ul]
[li] Japan declares war on US, attacks Pearl Harbor (I combine these since the order of these two depends on your perspective)[/li][li] US declares war on Japan[/li][li] Japan’s allies, Germany and Italy, declare war on the US[/li][/ul]
And all of that happened in December 1941. Are you suggesting that early the next year, we could have negotiated the terms of our surrender? Huh?
And Hail Ants, whenever you get a group together, each have their own interests. That should come as no surprise. That’s why you try to build consensus. If we just want to impose our ideas of freedom and democracy around the world, why not start with France?