Quote from: John MorrowRevolutions rarely work out well for "the people" and they enslave them at least as often as they free them.

So, is America with it's pure noble motives going to step into every country?

QuoteOf course we are, which is why you have the luxury of bitching and moaning about American and Western foreign policy, a Western freedom you apparently enjoy but are willing to casually discount for others.

Here in Malaysia....Western freedom? You have no idea, John Morrow. Whatever scrap of "freedom" we got, we fought for it. It's a little better now...what the hell am I saying. You have no idea, what you're talking about.

QuoteSure, it's like we're two different species. :rolleyes:

No, two distinct cultures, which prioritize different things .

QuoteAre you also going to tell me that women who remain in abusive relationships with men who beat them don't need love, affection, and tenderness because they want to be abused?

What the hell does this have to do with anything :rolleyes:

QuoteYeah, that's simple when the government has tanks and you have sticks.  I'm sure you believe that the people of Burma are happy to starve and that's why they aren't fighting back, right? And how did that whole Tiananmen Square protest work out?  Of course rather than getting themselves and their families killed trying to fight the systems, many Asians choose the same option that a million Vietnamese chose for more freedom -- they flee to the West.

Yeah they also flee to other countries in Asia. Of course all this talk of coming "here" means very little. So, after fucking up Vietnam, you don't want them to flee to your country ? Also how many are fleeing and how many are staying and fighting or working for and against the system.

QuoteIt depends on which part of China and which Chinese you talk to, and it's easy to make people happy when you control what they learn and can say.  I don't have to step foot in China to meet Chinese people because plenty of them chose to leave China and plenty were pushed out by the Communists, as well as Vietnamese and other Asian ethnicities. I guess they weren't authentic enough to not care about freedom.  

Yeah talking to people who flee China gives you everything you need to know. "Not authentic enough to care about freedom" :rolleyes: When you meet activists who choose to go back to the country and who work for and against the system and see a bright future for their country, then you'll get a better picture, than the show, you obviously viewing. Wanna attack China, Morrow?

QuoteNorth Korea looks like a great place to live, too.  I guess food, like freedom, is over-rated.  Real Asians don't need democracy, free speech, or even food.  They bask in the glorious aura of their leaders and like it that way. Look at how happy and prosperous they all look. :rolleyes:

Yeah, Morrow, that's it :rolleyes:

QuoteYou were the one talking about the people working things out.  It's kinda difficult for "the people" to work things out when most of "the people" have no say in how the country is run.

Yeah and American bombs/interference doesn't help either.

QuoteNo, and we never are.  The only flaws we are allowed to talk about are those of America and the West.  

Yes, so long as you think of yourselves as nobles warriors spreading freedom, when history has shown otherwise.

QuoteSure, but I've got to sit down and shut up while people piss on America?  If you had any perspective, maybe you'd grasp then when it comes to my country, I get a bit testy, too?

When did I piss on your country. You were the one who has serious misconceptions of how things work around here.

QuoteWhy?  Don't you want people to see how quickly a paradise can turn into a Hell-hole when the terrorists take over?

Terrorist ? Really ?

QuoteWe didn't bomb the crap out of Iraq nearly as much as Arab terrorists and militants have.  Oh, wait.  That's America's fault, too, isn't it?

Yes, yes it is. You invaded the country.

QuoteLet me guess, if the Iraqi's wanted freedom from Saddam, they should have fought him, right?  How well has that worked out for the Kurds who, judging by the commercials they've shown on American TV and the way they've gotten their act together in Iraq, are fairly happy with the Americans stepping in.  Let me guess.  They don't count, right.  Not authentic enough.  Authentic Middle Easterners, like authentic Asians don't need liberty, free speech, democracy, or a high standard of living.

So you went in for the Kurds ? By golly, a small oil rich section of Iraq. Of course they are happy. And let's drop this authentic shit. This high standard of living* you talk about happens in countries like Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, India, certain sections of Indonasia, Philipines and most of them ain't exactly swimming in liberty, free speech, democracy....you're also forgetting religious/cultural values*.

*high standard of living....you mean like american high living? :rolleyes:
**which again depends on how much free speech, freedom etc they believe in

Regards,
David R

Quote from: John MorrowIt's not as if America invaded paradise and turned it into Hell.

Yeah this is convenient. "This place was a shit hole when we arrived. Let's make it worse , so noone can tell the difference when we eventually leave....or better yet make it a little bit better, so we can say we did some good" :rolleyes:

QuoteAbsolutely.  If we broke it, we have to fix it, which is why I oppose the strategy of simply pulling out of Iraq.  That's why I'm pointing out what happened in other instances where the United States just pulled out and let the people sort it out.  I think we have an obligation to not to abandon them like we did the South Vietnamese and Cambodians.

Except you should not have been there in the first place. You are causing more trouble in the region. You should learn from the past. And no, I don't mean you should stay. I mean you should leave and not invade countries and create instability.....and then say "but if we leave.....

QuoteYeah, that always happens.  Look at Putin and Raul Castro and Robert Mugabe will be giving up power any decade now.

You gonna invade them too? The point is they will eventually leave and the US has no right to interfere in another country and when it does, whine about being disliked and having it's flaws pointed out.

QuoteWhy is his casual dismissal of the casualties any more distasteful than your casual dismissal of much larger body counts?

Point out where I dismissed larger body counts. Oh, you mean my opinion that countries should be allowed to decided their own path, even if said paths involves a high body count.

QuoteSaddam Hussein caused a massive amount of damage, from the sanctions he invited from the international community and his skimming of the nations wealth for himself and his close associates to his oppression of opposing ethnicities and the wars he wages against his neighbors.  It's not like Iraq was a tranquil pool disturbed by American rocks and need I remind you that the Americans and British continued to control the airspace and to bomb targets in Iraq throughout the 90s.

And also traded/engaged with him when it suited their purpose. Still trying to minimize the horror of the invasion, eh Morrow?

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RWell of course I question these so-called percision strikes and exactly how much damage they caused the country. The damage caused by the Iraqis themselves are a direct results of occupation whatever their real motives may be. Furthermore as an occupying force the US has the responsibility to maintain law and order. Of course this is an extremely difficult thing to pull off....hence the dangers of invading another country. Also, my comment was that the city could have been like Lebanon "after Saddam"...by this I meant either he was killed or replaced by his own countrymen.

Question away.  You constantly point out that our perspectives are limited because we 'aren't there'.  I'm telling you I was there. I saw the damage first hand in many cases. I lived in the bombed out wreckage of a Baath party headquarters for three months, worked on Iraqi airfields and oil depots for 9 more. I had dinner with Assyrian Christians in Kirkuk and pissed in a gold toilet in Tikrit. I saw more of the country I think than most Iraqis do. And I saw it all the year after the bombs stopped.  

Was Iraq a shithole?  Maybe. Certainly by American standards. But that was due more to neglect and urban decay rather than widespread bombing.    

Or to put it another way: how much time have YOU spent in Iraq to tell me what the damage was like?

QuoteSpike I don't mean to be rude, but I find this analogy distasteful. Like Morrow said, the dead can't complain.

Feel free to be rude. You often are anyway with your smug assurance that the rest of us speak from ignorance about the world.  I personally find your head in the sand kneejerk reaction to my analogy equally distasteful. Every day people die by the thousands. Every death is a tragedy.  I'm tempted to ask your opinion about Darfor, but that appears to have dropped off the radar of public opinion.  Yes, its a fucking tragedy when some 10 year old Iraqi boy blows his face off with an unexploded cluster bomblet. Its equally tragic when some ten year old Iraqi boy is murdered because he happened to be a Kurd. Its equally tragic when some ten year old Iraqi Boy dies because he hasn't eaten, or he has some medical condition which no one can treat in Iraq due to the fact that the hospitals are underfunded...

Its remarkably facile to point to one tragedy as 'preventable' by ignoring the other tragedies that would have occurred if we used your 'prevention'.  

QuoteIf you take issue with the fact that I stated that the US bombed the shit out of the country....well fair enough. The invasion caused a massive amount of damage. Maybe not the bombings itself - although I question this - but definitely the occupation.

War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over. -William Tecumseh Sherman

Quote from: David RSo, is America with it's pure noble motives going to step into every country?

Ah, the famous Internet excluded-middle argument.  I only get two choices, right?  All or nothing?

Quote from: David RHere in Malaysia....Western freedom? You have no idea, John Morrow. Whatever scrap of "freedom" we got, we fought for it. It's a little better now...what the hell am I saying. You have no idea, what you're talking about.

From the Wikipedia article on Malaysia (and feel free to correct these quotes if they are wrong because I'm well aware that Wikipedia is not error-free):

"The government is closely modeled after the Westminster parliamentary system."

"As a former British colony, it is also a member of the Commonwealth of Nations."

"Although the insurgency quickly stopped there was still a presence of Commonwealth troops, with the backdrop of the Cold War. Against this backdrop, independence for the Federation within the Commonwealth was granted on 31 August 1957."

"On November 2007 Malaysia was rocked by two anti-government rallies. The 2007 Bersih Rally numbering 40,000 strong was held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on November 10 campaigning for electoral reform. It was precipitated by allegations of corruption and discrepancies in the Malaysian election system that heavily favor the ruling political party, Barisan Nasional, which has been in power since Malaysia achieved its independence in 1957. The 2007 HINDRAF rally was held in Kuala Lumpur on 25 November. The rally organizer, the Hindu Rights Action Force, had called the protest over alleged discriminatory policies which favour ethnic Malays. The crowd was estimated to be between 5,000 to 30,000. In both cases the government and police were heavy handed and tried to prevent the gatherings from taking place."

"The system of government in Malaysia is closely modeled on that of Westminster parliamentary system, a legacy of British colonial rule."

So what I see is a country with a government based on a Western model with democratic elections and a people who seem fairly interested in fair and free elections.  So what am I missing?  Please note that I'm not saying that the Malaysians are not fighters or haven't earned what they have.  

Quote from: David RNo, two distinct cultures, which prioritize different things.

The Japanese have a different set of priorities than the United States, despite strong American influence in the shaping of post-war Japan, and I think it would be fair to argue that the Japanese people chose those priorities.  It also sounds like the Malaysians have chosen their priorities.  I think it''s not fair to say that the people living under despotic governments that allow little dissent, do not have free elections, and terrorize, abuse, and indoctrinate their populations into submission choose their priorities.  Rather they have them imposed upon them.  If you want to argue that Malaysia went through turmoil and is better for it, that's fine but just because that sort of thing sometimes works out well (or because the American Revolutionary War or Civil War worked out in the end) doesn't mean that those solutions always or even normally work out.

Quote from: David RYeah they also flee to other countries in Asia. Of course all this talk of coming "here" means very little. So, after fucking up Vietnam, you don't want them to flee to your country ?

I have no problem with the Vietnamese coming here.  I'm also not that upset about McCain's "amnesty" plan for illegal immigrants.  You must be confusing me with someone who is anti-immigrant.

Quote from: David RAlso how many are fleeing and how many are staying and fighting or working for and against the system.

You can look at the millions who fled Vietnam and say, "That's only a small percentage of the total population so that's not much," or you can look at the fact that they risked their lives in leaky boats and uncertain futures to get out and say, "That's a lot of people."  As for fighting the system, exactly what sort of effect do you think the widespread killing of political opponents and re-education camps have on people?  

Quote from: David RYeah talking to people who flee China gives you everything you need to know.

What makes their voice less credible than those who stay?  The most offensive thing is the idea that there is one correct Chinese perspective, as if all Chinese people speak with one voice and have no individual opinions or perspectives.  Would it surprise you if I told you that I know a Chinese couple who sent their son away to live with his grandparents in China rather than raising him for his first few years in the US?

Quote from: David RWhen you meet the activist who choose to go back to the country and who work for and against the system and see a bright future for their country, then you'll get a better picture, than the show, you obviously viewing.

In other words, you believe there is one correct and authentic Chinese perspective that is superior to others.  Some people don't have the energy or resources to fight and others would rather go where things work the way that they want instead of fighting a society where things go against what they want.

Quote from: David RWanna attack China, Morrow?

Of course not.  And I don't particularly want to attack North Korea, either, because the resulting war could destroy South Korea.  That doesn't mean that I'm going to entertain moral equivalency arguments between North Korea and the United States, that I'm going to legitimize the government of North Korea or talk about it being a government of "the people", or that I think the a Korea united under North Korean-style rule would be a swell thing.  Similarly, I think the United States made a lot of mistakes in both Vietnam and Iraq but that doesn't mean that I think the Vietnamese are better off under communist rule than they would have been if South Vietnam had remained a separate country or that we should cut and run from Iraq.

Quote from: David RYeah this is convenient. "This place was a shit hole when we arrived. Let's make it worse , so noone can tell the difference when we eventually leave....or better yet make it a little bit better, so we can say we did some good" :rolleyes:

Yes, better not look too closely at the full picture so we can focus only on the bad things that Americans do.  Abusing naked Iraqi prisoners looks pretty awful when you ignore what Saddam was doing to his prisoners in that same prison.  If you really want nightmares and a little perspective, I can point you to a video that I personally couldn't watch more than a few seconds of showing what happened in Iraqi prisons under Saddam.

Quote from: David RExcept you should not have been there in the first place.

That's arguable.  But assuming it's true, we can't go back and change history.  We are there.  We broke it.  It's our responsibility.  So what we should have done in the past is irrelevant.  What should we do going forward?  Should we just cut and run like we did in Southeast Asia?  Or should we stick around like we did in Europe, Japan, South Korea, and elsewhere?

Quote from: David RYou are causing more trouble in the region.

Yes, if it wasn't for us meddling Americans, the region would have no trouble. :rolleyes:

Quote from: David RYou should learn from the past.

You mean like Jimmy Carter turning his back on the Shah?  Like letting the North Vietnamese overrun the South Vietnamese?  Like turning our back on Cambodia?  Yeah, I am learning from our past, the past that the mainstream media likes to ignore.  That things don't always turn out so hot when the Americans up and leave.

Quote from: David RAnd no, I don't mean you should stay. I mean you should leave and not invade countries and create instability.....and then say "but if we leave.....

So we should leave and let Iraq fall apart and get even worse because we shouldn't have been there in the first place?  In what bizarro way does that make any sense if you really care about the people of Iraq?

Quote from: David RYou gonna invade them too?

Yes, every situation is the same so there are only two options, all or nothing.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: David RThe point is they will eventually leave and the US has no right to interfere in another country and when it does, whine about being disliked and having it's flaws pointed out.

Do local dictators have any more right to oppress and murder their civilian populations?  Is there any point (Darfur? Rwanda? Yugoslavia? Cambodia?  Nazi Germany?) at which you think the local despot is worse than foreign interference?  Do you condemn the Vietnamese for invading Cambodia and deposing the Khmer Rouge or is it OK for Asians to interfere with other Asians but not OK for Westerners to interfere?

As for having the US's flaws pointed out, we're pretty much damned if we do and damned if we don't.  What I whine about more is captured in the Biblical proverb about criticizing the splinter in another person's eye when you have a plank in your own eye.
 

Quote from: David RPoint out where I dismissed larger body counts. Oh, you mean my opinion that countries should be allowed to decided their own path, even if said paths involves a high body count.

You keep talking about countries as if they have opinions.  They don't.  How does a country decide it's own path?  Do you see any difference between a totalitarian government like Burma or North Korea where a small elite calls the shots vs. a democracy like South Korea or Japan where the people can actually vote or is it all 6 one way, a half-dozen the other for you?

Quote from: David RAnd also traded/engaged with him when it suited their purpose.

Of course we did, when there was a bigger threat to us.  The US did plenty of things during the Cold War that involved using other countries and people as pawns and proxies against the Soviet Union and China, including embracing some awful dictators and despots.  But I find it difficult to see how you can complain about that when you seem to argue that we should be leaving the same awful dictators and despots alone now that we don't have any pragmatic reason to want them to remain in power.

Quote from: David RStill trying to minimize the horror of the invasion, eh Morrow?

No.  Just trying to put it in perspective given the widespread minimizing of the horror before the invasion.  I think Spike is doing a far more credible job of that than me, though.

Quote from: SpikeQuestion away.  You constantly point out that our perspectives are limited because we 'aren't there'.  I'm telling you I was there. I saw the damage first hand in many cases. I lived in the bombed out wreckage of a Baath party headquarters for three months, worked on Iraqi airfields and oil depots for 9 more. I had dinner with Assyrian Christians in Kirkuk and pissed in a gold toilet in Tikrit. I saw more of the country I think than most Iraqis do. And I saw it all the year after the bombs stopped.

Think you saw more of the country than most Iraqis, hmm. Well yes spike I do think perspectives are limited. And I have spoken to Iraqis - Sunnis, Shia and Kurds - Muslims and Christians who were there during Saddams time and the war. Their reports were different. They had  (and rightly so) major issues with their country and countrymen, but it was theirs to solve. And btw I still communicate with those who went back. The bombs have not stopped, American or otherwise. Funny thing, these students were not really liked by the local Muslims because they were too secular. This of course has changed since the war.

QuoteWas Iraq a shithole?  Maybe. Certainly by American standards. But that was due more to neglect and urban decay rather than widespread bombing.

Like I said. If it was a shithole it was their to clean up. And just because it was, doesn't mean the Americans should go and contribute to the shit in the guise of spreading freedom and democracy....even though those were not the reasons given.    

QuoteOr to put it another way: how much time have YOU spent in Iraq to tell me what the damage was like?

Yeah, end of discussion I suppose. No refering to any other sources :rolleyes:

QuoteFeel free to be rude. You often are anyway with your smug assurance that the rest of us speak from ignorance about the world.  I personally find your head in the sand kneejerk reaction to my analogy equally distasteful. Every day people die by the thousands. Every death is a tragedy.  I'm tempted to ask your opinion about Darfor, but that appears to have dropped off the radar of public opinion.
Yes, its a fucking tragedy when some 10 year old Iraqi boy blows his face off with an unexploded cluster bomblet. Its equally tragic when some ten year old Iraqi boy is murdered because he happened to be a Kurd. Its equally tragic when some ten year old Iraqi Boy dies because he hasn't eaten, or he has some medical condition which no one can treat in Iraq due to the fact that the hospitals are underfunded...

Right, from an analogy trying to justify collateral damage, you play the African card. And the rest of this nonsense you posted, it's not a tragedy that people are dying all over the world, it's a tragedy that it can be helped or alleviated maybe by the leadership of the world's only remaining (for the time being) super power. Instead we get time and money spent on something like Iraq. Well shit, why not intervene in Darfur or at the very least contribute a significant presence there? But yeah, the old excuse, "if we do, we would be conidered Imperialist".  

Care to point out where I have been smug. The only real conversations I've had in OT was when Nox was around. A few brief skirmishers here and there. I stay away from American domestic policy. The only reason I'm here now, is because of this side trek with John Morrow.

QuoteIts remarkably facile to point to one tragedy as 'preventable' by ignoring the other tragedies that would have occurred if we used your 'prevention'.  

What staying out countries you had no business being in? Allowing the people to choose their own destiny? Or are you talking about the poor to no planning before the invasion of Iraq ?

QuoteWar is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over. -William Tecumseh Sherman

That's so cute. I'm sure it's justified in some cases. This is not one of them. And there are plenty more examples in American foreign policy.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: John MorrowAh, the famous Internet excluded-middle argument.  I only get two choices, right?  All or nothing?

You are the one who chooses to view the world in a dualistic fashion. It should not be too difficult to spread freedom and democracy if that was the goal...hell, I believe if America was credible in this, the people of the free and unfree world would support them even if their respective goverments did not. Unless of course the premise is one of self interest and profit, where one has to pick and choose it's allies and enemies. Then it get's dodgy.

QuoteFrom the Wikipedia article on Malaysia (and feel free to correct these quotes if they are wrong because I'm well aware that Wikipedia is not error-free).....
So what I see is a country with a government based on a Western model with democratic elections and a people who seem fairly interested in fair and free elections.  So what am I missing?  

• Detention without trial.


• Gorverment and party based control of the media.


• Electoral fraud.


• Torture when in detention.


• Racial inequality between the three ethnic groups - an "affirmative action" policy favouring the majority ethnic Malays, which gives them preferential prices when buying property, higher education, loans, goverment tenders, etc


• A corrupt police force


• Any goverment documents bound under the official secrests act...even municipal council meetings.


• Censorship


• Religious conversions not recognised by the courts.


• The influence of Syariah law.

I got more, but why bother, it's our probelm to solve.
 

QuoteIf you want to argue that Malaysia went through turmoil and is better for it, that's fine but just because that sort of thing sometimes works out well (or because the American Revolutionary War or Civil War worked out in the end) doesn't mean that those solutions always or even normally work out.

And what is your solution. That's it's imported by the barrel of a foreign gun ?

QuoteYou can look at the millions who fled Vietnam and say, "That's only a small percentage of the total population so that's not much," or you can look at the fact that they risked their lives in leaky boats and uncertain futures to get out and say, "That's a lot of people."  As for fighting the system, exactly what sort of effect do you think the widespread killing of political opponents and re-education camps have on people?  

Again, it's not my place to say. This is their problem to solve.

QuoteWhat makes their voice less credible than those who stay?  The most offensive thing is the idea that there is one correct Chinese perspective, as if all Chinese people speak with one voice and have no individual opinions or perspectives.  Would it surprise you if I told you that I know a Chinese couple who sent their son away to live with his grandparents in China rather than raising him for his first few years in the US?

I never said they were less credible. Where did I say this ? You're are the one who brought up the whole authentic issue. I suppose to imply, even though I never did, that these folks were some how traitors to their countries.

QuoteIn other words, you believe there is one correct and authentic Chinese perspective that is superior to others.  Some people don't have the energy or resources to fight and others would rather go where things work the way that they want instead of fighting a society where things go against what they want.

Huh ? Where did I imply this. I was merely responding to your examples of people who left with examples of people who chose to remain behind.

QuoteOf course not.  And I don't particularly want to attack North Korea, either, because the resulting war could destroy South Korea.  That doesn't mean that I'm going to entertain moral equivalency arguments between North Korea and the United States, that I'm going to legitimize the government of North Korea or talk about it being a government of "the people", or that I think the a Korea united under North Korean-style rule would be a swell thing.  

Of course North Korea is not what anyone would call a legitimate goverment. And of course, the US has it's own interests in the region. Of course I don't think that life there is swell...although there will come a day when both the Koreas are unified. So, yeah you pick fights that you think you can win. It's not about helping the people or spreading democracy. It's about self interest and perhaps profit.

QuoteSimilarly, I think the United States made a lot of mistakes in both Vietnam and Iraq but that doesn't mean that I think the Vietnamese are better off under communist rule than they would have been if South Vietnam had remained a separate country or that we should cut and run from Iraq.

Well yes, America made mistakes and doesn't seem to learn for them. I'll let the Vietnamese decide their own future.

Edit: I'm pressed for time and will respond to your other post later

Regards,
David R

David R, I don't think you can have a productive discussion about American foreign policy with John Morrow. Indeed, to have a productive discussion on that topic with any American is difficult, as they're a very polarised people. Anything less than blind praise for their country is bigoted condemnation of them and praise for the vilest enemy they've ever had, unless you're talking to some guilty liberal, when anything less than blanket condemnation is... you get the picture.

The discussion's particularly unproductive with Morrow's somewhat autistic-looking line-by-line refutation style.

Both David and Morrow ought to be talking about rpgs. It'd be more interesting for the readers, more productive and less stressful for them.

I'm thinking a kind of alt-history thing, where after Obama takes over the black population of the States rises up (with the Hispanics) and reduces the whites to servitude. Small bands of free white men will strike back in guerilla missions against the coloured overlords.

Quote from: David RThink you saw more of the country than most Iraqis, hmm.

Yes. Given that most PEOPLE do not travel far from their hometowns much, given the Iraqi tribal perspective and general lack of disposable wealth and given that I have been to every major and a fair chunk of the minor Iraqi towns and cities, from Basra to the Turkish Border to being within Spitting Distance of Iran, I think thats a very fair statement.

 

QuoteWell yes spike I do think perspectives are limited. And I have spoken to Iraqis - Sunnis, Shia and Kurds - Muslims and Christians who were there during Saddams time and the war. Their reports were different. They had  (and rightly so) major issues with their country and countrymen, but it was theirs to solve. And btw I still communicate with those who went back. The bombs have not stopped, American or otherwise. Funny thing, these students were not really liked by the local Muslims because they were too secular. This of course has changed since the war.

At what point have I stated we were objectively right to go in and solve Iraq's problems?  I disagree with your characterizations of the bombing and infrastructure damage in specific, and I disagree with your bullish idea that Americans are teh evil, objectively, in Iraq.  We are there now, and we are trying with mixed success to make the most of it. Simply throwing our hands in the air and saying 'we shouldna done this... lets get the fuck out' would probably make things worse, and then you'd be blaming us for making a hash of it by leaving too abruptly. Its a lose lose situation.

QuoteLike I said. If it was a shithole it was their to clean up. And just because it was, doesn't mean the Americans should go and contribute to the shit in the guise of spreading freedom and democracy....even though those were not the reasons given.    

Strawman. I never claimed that we gave those reasons.  In fact, I'm pretty sure the reasons given were "WMD" and "supports Terrorism".   I'm pretty sure of that because we've been something of a laughingstock for using those reasons for the last several years.  

QuoteRight, from an analogy trying to justify collateral damage, you play the African card. And the rest of this nonsense you posted, it's not a tragedy that people are dying all over the world, it's a tragedy that it can be helped or alleviated maybe by the leadership of the world's only remaining (for the time being) super power. Instead we get time and money spent on something like Iraq. Well shit, why not intervene in Darfur or at the very least contribute a significant presence there? But yeah, the old excuse, "if we do, we would be conidered Imperialist".  

Justify?  I suppose you can call it that. More like 'Shit happens, its inevitable' or even, more importantly, 'The Iraq invasion had far less collateral damage than any war in history'.  An important point when your entire theme was 'America bombed the hell out of that country and made it worse'. Its a rebuttal to your bullshit characterization.  

I bring up Darfor for a reason. At least when it was more 'hot' politically, there was a huge cry for Americans to 'Do Something' about a country we had no real connection with.  Yet, at the same time there was absolute loathing for our presence in Iraq. We've got a history with Iraq, from the first gulf war, to paying Saddam to fight Iran in the '80s. We had, in a sense, unfinished business there.   The entire point is that quite often in these discussions those opposed to various actions want the same actions performed elsewhere, with less cause. Iraq under Saddam had no less history of genocidal violence than Darfur. What makes one group of Genocidal motherfuckers more important to stop than another?  True, YOU didn't bring them to this thread... call it a proscriptive call on my part.

QuoteCare to point out where I have been smug. The only real conversations I've had in OT was when Nox was around. A few brief skirmishers here and there. I stay away from American domestic policy. The only reason I'm here now, is because of this side trek with John Morrow.

Well, there is this ongoing theme of David R popping up in discussions about America in the international stage to point out how stupid and ignorant we are, and how much better you are than us. THat's smug shit right there. I don't go around talking about how backwards Malaysians are, do I?

QuoteThat's so cute. I'm sure it's justified in some cases. This is not one of them. And there are plenty more examples in American foreign policy.

Regards,
David R

Actually, if you look up more quotes by Sherman he was opposed to war. Once you are in one, however... as we already are... his quote is topical.

But I'm late so I have to cut this short.

Quote from: John MorrowThe region isn't a mess simply because the "Western powers" messed them up.  The Soviets (who I suppose you could call "Western"), Chinese, and locals infatuated with Communism (which you can blame on the West, I suppose, since many were educated in the West) all played a role and it takes two sides to fight a war.

I was thinking of the French, actually, without whom's imperialism and mismanagement the Vietcong wouldn't have been necessary or have gained popular support. But whatever. Apparently your universe begins and ends with the United States and the Enemies Of The United States, no surprise that you'd have forgotten about the French.

QuoteYes, the US bombed Cambodia because the North Vietnamese were using Cambodia to move resources and to hide out.  If the North Vietnamese weren't there, the Americans wouldn't have been bombing it.  And do you really think South Koreans would be better of the Western powers had just washed their hands of it and let the Glorious Leader take over the entire country?  Think of the carbon dioxide emissions that would be cut if all of the Korean peninsula was as dark as North Korea at night and if South Koreans had the living standard and life expectancy of those in the North, right?

Yes, as some have pointed out, there are some key differences between those wars and Iraq (and indeed, you can't really compare the Korean war and the Vietnam war, even though M*A*S*H* has kind of melded them together in peoples' minds).  Those 20th century wars were proxy wars for the "superpowers" of that age.

What's the excuse this time around? What massive nuclear superpower was supporting Saddam Hussein? What Superpower is going to "take over" Iraq if you pull out? The claim is relatively solid that the Korean war was a "war of liberation", the claim is highly suspect that the Vietnam war was a "war of liberation" (because, as has been pointed out in this thread, the majority of the vietnamese actually favoured the Vietcong), but there is NO FUCKING WAY you can justify the ongoing occupation of Iraq as a "war of liberation". Its a war of occupation and exploitation, PERIOD.

QuoteGiven that we can actually compare the places in the region where the US stuck around or offered protection (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan) and the places where the US washed their hands of the problem or left the despots in power (North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia),

Yeah, and Chile is the most prosperous economy in South America today; it doesn't change the fact that you were responsible for the deaths of thousands of people and 20 years of oppression there.
Hell, your little list above could just as easily be a comparative list of body counts (Post-war, in Japan's case, of course). The places where you murdered less people have generally turned out to do better. Big surprise.

QuoteI think it's safe to say that they'd be better off, unless you are indifferent to the fact that the Vietnamese still live under a government that limits their freedoms and that plenty of Vietnamese, given the choice, got into leaky boats to get out of the place.

More of them would apparently have chosen to support the vietcong. But you wouldn't let a little thing like that get in the way, right? What was that quote? "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people... the issues are too important to be left to its people to decide for themselves".  Of course, that one wasn't about Vietnam (it was Kissinger, talking about Chile), but it might as well have been.

QuoteSo without the West's involvement, the communists would have been a bunch of harmless fuzz balls that would have created paradise on earth for their citizens?  You are like the left-wing equivalent of Pat Buchanan.

The "west" did a really excellent job of preventing the communist takeover of Western Europe without having to turn West Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, etc into brutal bloodthirsty dictatorships; and they seemed able to put troops in some of those countries without feeling the need to install a puppet government and brutally murder the locals.
Its a pity that they chose to take the short-cut routes with all the countries that weren't what they thought of as "white". And continue to do so now, when they don't even have the spectre of "communism" to justify their occupations.

RPGPundit

Quote from: John MorrowIf you haven't notice, most communist nations don't have free elections and tend to come to power (or stay in power if the people are stupid enough to elect them at some point) via force, so it's really not up to the citizens to decide, in many cases.  

In the case of Vietnam, the majority of the Vietnamese favour the vietcong, and did so as early as the first half of the 1960s.
In the case of Chile, they democratically elected their "communist" president, and the United States made it brutally clear that their war back then had NOTHING to do with "promoting democracy", they took that democratic election and threw it right out the window along with a few thousand chilean bodies who's chief crime in America's eyes was having voted the wrong way.

And as for Iraq, the subject of the moment: What do you think, John? If the Iraqi people were allowed by the American Occupation to hold a free and fair referendum as to whether they want the U.S. troops to immediately withdraw from Iraq, which side do you think would win that vote?
So please, let's not bullshit about this being about "creating democracy".

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditWhat's the excuse this time around? What massive nuclear superpower was supporting Saddam Hussein? What Superpower is going to "take over" Iraq if you pull out?

Islamism.  It's the new communism.  If we pull out, it will take over the world and we'll all be wearing turbans (just like how it worked when we pulled out of Vietnam).  It's already happened in Europe, according to some posters here. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Kyle AaronIndeed, to have a productive discussion on that topic with any American is difficult, as they're a very polarised people.

Walks into the thread, cranks up some Glory Days by Springsteen.

Hey we're not all unreasonable. Hell a few of us don't even believe everything we do is right, or noble. Heh. That said, I think we have more nutters per square foot than anywhere else in the world.

If only our chief export really was Chuck Norris.

"Any" American? "They're a polarised people?" When did we all become homogeneous clones?

"Two types of people I can't stand: those who are intolerant of other cultures, and the Dutch."