Quote from: David RYou are the one who chooses to view the world in a dualistic fashion.

Where?  I've repeatedly said that America has made mistakes and done bad as well as good.  My argument is with the idea that everything America has done has been bad and that American involvement has always been all bad.  And in this particular thread, having to do with Barack Obama, my argument has been that America shouldn't leave until things are stable because even if you view various American entanglements around the world in places like Iraq and Vietnam has horrible mistakes that America had no business starting, leaving abruptly has usually made things even worse.  

Quote from: David RIt 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.

Again with the false dilemma.  Obviously freedom and democracy are not easy to spread because there are people, sometimes local and sometimes outsiders, with a vested interest in making it fail.  What's curious is that you and RPGPundit have problem spotting places where America helped thwart democracy for selfish reasons (e.g., Vietnam, various Latin American countries, etc.) but you seem disinterested in the role that other countries have played in thwarting democracy in other countries (e.g., the Soviet Union, China, some European nations, some Latin American nations, etc.) or the role that various indigenous individuals and groups play in thwarting it.  You also make it sound as if none of the other governments of the world have any self-interest or profit in thwarting democracy.  Perhaps I'm simply imaging the involvement of the French and people within the UN played in helping Saddam avoid the sanctions against Iraq designed to help and encourage the Iraqi people deal with Saddam themselves during the decade and a half between the end of the first Gulf War and the invasion of Iraq.

The reality, as opposed to your straw man, is that freedom and democracy are not easy to spread because there are interests involved in stopping them from spreading and because, like increasing the wealth of the poor, "the people" you talk so poetically about (as if they all speak with one voice and as if their will is reflected in the actions of their government) can't maintain it without the knowledge and skill to do so.  If you hand a poor person a pile of money and they don't know how to manage it, save it, invest it, and spend it wisely, it's only a matter of time before most of them will be poor again.  Similarly, if you hand people full of distrust and tribal loyalties democracy and they vote based on self-interest, tribal loyalties, and misinformation, it's only a matter of time before they'll be living under a despotic system of government again.  Freedom, wealth, and other elements of Western Civilization are valuable and desirable but not self-maintaining no-brainers that will grow in any soil without maintenance.

So since democracy is hard, can fail, and can cost billions of dollars and many thousands of dead people, both your own and those of the people you are trying to help, the cost and risks have to be weighed against the benefits and fights have to be chosen selectively on that basis.  Again, this is basic project management stuff that idealists often can't be bothered with considering.  The world is a simpler place with only two choices.

You are trying to frame this in terms of American interests in freedom and democracy being matters of self-interest and personal profit but you need only look at those cases during the Cold War where it was America thwarting freedom and democracy in Vietnam and elsewhere to see that there is often more cynical self-interest and personal profit in preventing freedom and democracy than spreading it, and you might want to look at the self-interest and profit angle, as well, for some other reasons why various countries and people don't support the United States' efforts to spread freedom and democracy.  For example, I've spoken with Indians who were pleased that Pakistan was ruled by Musharraf rather than a democratically controlled government because he felt India was safer that way.

This also totally ignores the possibility that, for example, Americans actually opposed democracy that might lead to communist governments based on the belief that such governments would be a disaster for the locals and produce a non-democratic results, anyway.  You'll notice that for the most part, since the end of the Cold War, those countries that were run by right-wing despots supported by the United States in opposition to freedom and democracy now have governments elected through free elections.

Quote from: David R

• 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.

Sure, and because you have a basic democratic foundation and because the people have the possibility of protesting, it's a lot easier to solve than if you lived in a country with even greater problems and less freedom.  Working it out yourselves is, of course, ideal.  But I think you are also fooling yourself if you think that foreign governments don't have an influence on the success or failure of your government, even if they aren't dropping bombs.  And the deck is generally stacked in favor of the incumbent leaders, even in a democracy, but it becomes more and more heavily stacked when individuals have less freedom.

To put this in a way that might make it easier to understand, do you really think that white minority rule in South Africa would have come to an end without various governments and groups in the West opposing the government there, imposing sanctions, and depicting them as evil?  And if the white minority rulers of South Africa had been a bit more ruthless, a bit less ethical, and a bit more bold and chose to hang on to power, more ruthlessly murder their opponents, and to wave the atomic bombs around (that they reportedly developed and had) to demand concessions, do you really think that they couldn't have held on to power?  One need only look one country north of South Africa to see what a despot willing to keep power at all costs can do to his opponents and his country, as well as a good example of how a democratically elected leader can bring about the effective end of democracy.
 

Quote from: David RAnd what is your solution. That's it's imported by the barrel of a foreign gun ?

To look at the costs, benefits, risks, and so on of each situation individually and make a determination on that basis.  And, yes, I think a "foreign gun" can be an option and even a welcome option when all of the "local guns" are in the hands of a despotic minority rather than the people.  If the locals don't have any guns, how are they supposed to take matters into their own hands?  How's that working out for the Buddhists in Burma and Tibet?

Quote from: David RAgain, it's not my place to say. This is their problem to solve.

What does that mean in practice because it's not simply their problem and having no impact on the solution is not a problem.  Unless you want to force the Vietnamese to stay in Vietnam no matter how badly they want out, the refugees become the problem of other governments.  By boycotting and sanctioning the government you affect the outcome, just as you do by trading with them, aiding them, and selling them military hardware.  And even if the United States and Europe were to sit on their hands and do nothing about Vietnam, it's not as if various other nations in and out of the region don't take sides and influence the outcome.  Need I remind you of the ideology of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere and how that turned out?  So this idea of countries as islands solving their own problems if only the US or the West would mind it's own business is not only idealistic but unrealistic.  It's not like we can lock countries in the Thunderdome until they work things out themselves with no outside influence.  And in the few cases that come close (Cambodia or Burma or some African nations) the results are often a disaster for "the people" to the benefit of a few at the top.

Quote from: David RI 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.

No, the problem is that you hear the voices you seem to feel that the Asian or Iraqi voices that you hear are more credible and legitimate than the Asian and Iraqi voices that other people have heard, even to the point of questioning Spike's experience with actual Iraqi's in Iraq as opposed to the much narrower slice of Iraqis who traveled abroad that you've met.  Remember, I've lived in yet another Asian country and for all the talk of "the Japanese" and how uniform and similar they are (e.g., "the nail that sticks out gets hammered down"), the truth is that there is a wide variety of opinions in Japan about various things and that individual Japanese are just that -- individuals.  That all gets lost in talk about "the people".  And it gets lost when you assume that the Chinese or Vietnamese that are doing OK or the Iraqis who are unhappy with the American's toppling Saddam are the voice of "the people" while the Chinese or Vietnamese who suffered and fled or the Iraqis who welcomed the invasion don't count.

Is the China of today the disaster that it was doing the Great Leap Forward?  Of course not.  Is Putin's Russia as bad as the Soviet Union under Stalin?  Of course not.  And Malaysia seems to have had it's ups and downs as well.  I'm not surprised that you can find happy people who have enough faith in the system that they want to work it out.  But does that mean that there still aren't horrible places in the world where "the people" have little ability to change or fix things?  Of course not.  Would you trade living in Malaysia for living in Burma or Somalia or North Korea or Zimbabwe?  I doubt it, especially if you had to live like one of the normal people there.  And all you seem to have to offer them is the possibility that decades down the line their leaders will die and maybe eventually get replaced by better ones.

Quote from: David RHuh ? 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.

You are implying that one perspective is superior to others.

Quote from: David ROf course North Korea is not what anyone would call a legitimate goverment.

Is it any less legitimate than the government of Saddam Hussein or the Taliban or the theocracy in control of Iraq or the Castros in Cuba?  What makes a government legitimate or illegitimate?

Quote from: David RAnd of course, the US has it's own interests in the region.

Of course it does.  But just because I have self-interested reasons to want decent neighbors who keep up their property doesn't mean (A) that it's not better for my neighbors themselves if they are decent and keep up their property or (B) that if I lend my neighbors a hand that I don't also have a genuine interest in helping them out.  What did America really gain, for example, in Kosovo?  Or in sending the Marines into Somalia?

Quote from: David ROf course I don't think that life there is swell...although there will come a day when both the Koreas are unified.

Are you indifferent to whether that unification happens because the North decides to join the South much as East Germany joined West Germany or if it takes place at the end of a gun with North Korea overrunning South Korea (perhaps because America decided to take it's tens of thousands of troops and military aid and go home) the way North Vietnam overran South Vietnam?  Or is one outcome better than the other?  Should other countries mind their own business or try to encourage the better outcome, if you think there is one?

Quote from: David RSo, 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.

Those two goals are not mutually exclusive.  You can pick a fight on the basis that (A) it can be won, (B) that it helps the people, and (C) that there is some self-interest involved.  These aren't single dimensional or zero-sum choices.

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

What does it mean for "the Vietnamese" to "decide" their own future, especially when their government is influenced by other players in the region?  Is Chinese or Russian aid somehow less tainted than American aid?

Quote from: RPGPunditIn 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.

While I think that's a legitimate argument to make, I think you are ignoring two important points.

First, one of the reasons to oppose the democratic election of communists during the Cold War was that the rise of communists to power often meant the end of real democracy.  See Zimbabwe for a good example of how that's still working.  Sure, Mugabe was elected but now he's refusing to lose an election and using the power he has to stay in power.  Democracy can fail and the people can throw it away, often without realizing it.  And, yes, you can find examples of right-wing military dictatorships doing the same thing.

Second, even if the United States made Pinochet's coup happen, Pinochet was not himself an American, Pinochet was not the first to attempt a coup against Allende (e.g.,  Colonel Roberto Souper) nor would he have been the last, and was Allende was doing plenty of things that questioned his respect of the law and democracy that conveniently get ignored by history that views him as a martyr.  Even if you don't personally agree with it or think it was the primary goal, plenty of those who backed and still backed Pinochet think he was best not only for them but for the people of Chile in general.  And that's really no different than the argument that people make in defense of Castro that as bad as he might be (and his body count is comparable to Pinochet's) that he was better for Cuba than Batista.  

Quote from: RPGPunditAnd 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?

I think that if you held that referendum now, you might find a plurality that want the Americans to stay for at least a while.  The vast majority of Kurds likely do, as do some of the other ethnic minorities, including a growing number of Sunnis who are starting to recognize the influence of Iran on their country.  Are there Iraqis who want the United States out immediately?  Of course there are.  And plenty of them want that because they think they can use the resulting chaos to carve a nice slice of the pie out for themselves or their faction.

Quote from: RPGPunditSo please, let's not bullshit about this being about "creating democracy".

It took at least 5 years for the United States to officially end their occupation of Japan and the US still has naval and air bases there.  Countries aren't rebuilt in a month.  I know it's difficult for people with a Britney Spears attention span to think about things taking years but that's what it takes to to it right.  The US has been in Iraq for just over 5 years and things are starting to improve quite a bit.  And let's not forget about the other countries in the region, particularly Iran, actively supporting their own interests, as well.

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

Of course.  We can't be allowing any self-determination, now can we.  They might choose wrong.  Those ignorant peasants don't understand the true value of democracy and freedom.  They must be shown the way, by force.

Never mind how many of us Western countries came by those values all on our own, we're white, and Western, that's different.

Quote from: RPGPunditI 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.

I am well aware of the French and included them when I talked about "Western Powers".  But to make that distinction, we have to talk at a more granular level than simple East and West or Foreign and Domestic.  I'd be happy to do that.  But my point is that the United States and France were not the only influences on Vietnam (the Soviet Union supported and supplied the North), nor were the communist ideas promoted by the Vietcong indigenous.  The idea of Vietnam as a tranquil pool that was disturbed only by the United States or France ignores the influences on the other side.

Quote from: RPGPunditYes, 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.

While they were certainly proxy wars, the current conflict in Iraq is also a proxy war of sorts against terrorists, Iran, and Syria.  But that does not mean that there aren't good guys and bad guys and better and worse outcomes for the people being fought over or for.  I don't think it's a mistake that the side backed by the United States is usually the side better off today and that, for example, South Korea is better of than North Korea or Chile is better off than Cuba and that the former are democracies while the later still ruled by dictators.  While you can certainly point to self-interest, it's not as if American involvement had no benefits.

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?

The regional power, intent on becoming a nuclear power, that will take over is Iran.  And, yes, both Iran and Iraq posed and still post a threat to American allies and interests in the region, as the invasion of Kuwait illustrated.  There is also the possibility of Taliban-style radicals (perhaps Shiite rather than Sunni) taking over and need I remind you that the Taliban provided the based of operations from which Al Qaeda trained and exported terrorism?

Quote from: RPGPunditThe 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),

By 1975, I doubt a majority in the South wanted to be overrun and millions certainly voted with their feet and left once the North did conquer the South.  The main reason why the North succeeded is that the Democrat-controlled congress cut off all their aid.  As for whether it was a legitimate "war of liberation" or not, so exactly how free were the conquered people of South Vietnam and how free has Vietnam been since the North took it all over?

Quote from: RPGPunditbut 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.

What are we exploiting that's worth the billions we are spending to remain there?  The ongoing occupation of Iraq is justified on the grounds that it's holding of a chaos that will kill plenty more innocent Iraqis and probably lead to either another depot rising to the top or to the Iranians getting effective control of Iraq (possibly leading to the Kurds going all out against Iran and Turkey to create a Kurdistan).  Do you honestly believe that things won't get more chaotic and deadly for the Iraqis if the American's leave?

Quote from: RPGPunditYeah, 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.

What was the alternative?  We can't really know what would have happened if Allende had remained in power but the belief was that things would be worse.  Hindsight is 20/20 but people have to make decisions without the benefit of hindsight.  Allende gave not only the United States but many people in Chile plenty to fear.  It's not as if there wasn't substantial domestic opposition to his policies.  You've also touted the 2006 Nicaraguan election as vindication of the Sandinistas while ignore that Ortega, like Allende, won with a plurality of less than 40% of the vote in a multi-candidate election and ignore Ortega's poor poll numbers and approval just as you ignore the various opponents of Allende, questions of the legality of his actions, and other coup attempts showing him in a less favorable light.  The reason why communists invariably destroy democracy (or try to) is that they invariably screw things up and can't remain in power democratically.  Let's see what Chavez does if he loses an election.  Do you think he'll quietly give up power?

Quote from: RPGPunditHell, 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.

Uh, the Americans obliterated two Japanese cities with atomic bombs and typically killed more Japanese civilians in a single night of fire bombings on a Japanese city than Pinochet killed in his 20 years in power.  The United States bombed many Japanese cities, including much of Tokyo, flat.  That it happened before the end of the war is as irrelevant as making a distinction between the destruction the US caused invading Iraq or in the decade previously during and after the first Gulf War and the destruction that's happened since.  To the civilians, it doesn't make a lot of difference.  

You might want to take a good look at the plight of South Koreans, including the recent uncovering of mass graves of suspected leftists and communists killed during the war before you make that claim.  That compares favorably to what Pinochet did (killing off leftists and suspected communists without a trial).  You might also want to look at how many Germans died after the end of WW2 due to mistreatment.

The official reports are that Pinochet's regime murdered 3,000 and detained and tortured around 27,000.  Even if you except the higher death tolls of his opponents, they are not worse than what happened elsewhere and were largely from Pinochet's first few years in power.  That doesn't mean that the torture and death of many if not most of them were an unjust tragedy but I find it curious that Pinochet is depicted as a devil while despots who killed as many or more are ignored and the pattern conveniently seems to show that Pinochet's real crime was not that he killed and tortured civilians without a trial but that he killed and tortured leftists and overthrew a leftist.  Had he been a leftist dictator overthrowing a right-wing government, he would be praised like the little turd Che Guevara, who also brutally murdered plenty of civilians without trial for being political enemies, yet you apparently find him admirable.

It's not as simple as counting the bodies or reasons for resentment.  Not in terms of success of failure nor in terms of why people such as yourself overlook or even approve on one despot yet single out another for criticism.

Quote from: RPGPunditMore 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.

True, but why was Kissinger saying that?  What did it mean for a country to elect communists and why would they do so?  Please note that I'm not agreeing with every case in which America made that choice for another country but I think it's entirely possible to oppose the democratic election of communists in the short-term in order to promote democracy in the long term.  Chile is, after all, a democracy today, is it not?  So is El Salvador, right?  And who dragged the Sandinistas kicking and screaming to hold elections and respect the results?

Quote from: RPGPunditThe "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.

Sure.  It did so by setting up a massive military presence, writing their constitutions for them, purging their governments of fascists and communists, and so on.  Yes, that's largely been lost because at the time the West didn't have an antagonist press doing everything they could to find fault in the actions of the Allies.  Oh, and in some cases, we did actually massively bomb those countries killing large numbers of civilians and destroying their industrial infrastructure, the sort of carnage the US is accused of causing in Iraq but tried to avoid.  And let's not forget the Marshall Plan.  Perhaps you also missed the part where Germany was partitioned into zones controlled by various countries or how the Italians actively helped the Americans invade their country, and so on.  

The Allies didn't need to back brutal blood-thursty dictators because we had a level of control that they didn't need to.  Had they conquered Chile the way they conquered Germany and had that sort of control over how it was run, that might have been an option there, too.  As for puppet governments, you might want to take a good look at the control that the US and other Allies exerted over those nations in the post-war period, which included, for example, writing a pacifist constitution for the Japanese.

In fact, that was the model that the US tried to follow in Iraq but it failed because (A) Iraq is more factionalized, (B) outside influences are destabilizing Iraq, (C) Iraq wasn't as nationally cohesive as any of those European nations before the war, (D) the United States didn't always use enough force to get rid of trouble-makers, and (E) the equation between the Baath Party and fascists was imperfect and they probably didn't have to purse the Iraq government and military of Baathists to the extent that they did.

Quote from: RPGPunditIts 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.

I agree that bad short-cuts were taken during the Cold War and still are today.  I also agree there are cases where the United States is less careful about the consequences of what they do, though I think the racism plays a bigger role in Asia and Africa than Latin America or the Middle East.  

The United States isn't perfect and I'd like to see them do things better and exhibit more consistent concern about their impact on the locals.  But I don't agree that the United States acts without any regard for the welfare of the people in other countries nor do I think that it always does more harm than good.  

Even if I agree for the sake of argument that invading Iraq did more harm than good and shouldn't have been done, we can't take back the invasion and leaving abruptly without regard for the consequences would only add another wrong on top of it.

Quote from: J ArcaneNever mind how many of us Western countries came by those values all on our own, we're white, and Western, that's different.

How many of us Western countries did come to those values on their own?  I suppose WW1 and WW2 with millions of casualties and victors imposing governments on the losers played absolutely no role in the shape of modern Europe?  I don't know about the rest of you but most of my ancestors come from parts of Europe that were subjugated and had alien cultures imposed on them by outsiders.  Do you think English is the native language of Scotland or Ireland?  Do you think the French and Spanish original spoke languages based on Latin?  I can understand people forgetting what the Romans imposed on Europe nearly two millennia ago but WW1 and WW2 were less than a century ago.  Europe was hardly an idyllic land of peace and prosperity where the people freely and naturally found their way to freedom and democracy without outside interference.  There are plenty of cemeteries full of dead Americans (often from battles that killed as many in one day as we've lost from our entire time in Afghanistan and Iraq) from both wars in Europe as a testament to that.

(If I want to be really uncharitable, I could point out that democracy had to be imposed on Germany twice before it took.)

Quote from: Kyle AaronDavid 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.

Let me guess.  A "productive" discussion with an American is one where the American agrees that he's wrong, right?

Quote from: Kyle AaronAnything 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.

I've said plenty of things critical of the United States and can talk, for example, all about the atrocities committed by the American military during WW2 and Korea as well as Vietnam and Iraq but I put it in perspective and compare it to what others in a similar position have done and how the alternatives that people advocate have played out when they have.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThe discussion's particularly unproductive with Morrow's somewhat autistic-looking line-by-line refutation style.

Ah, yes.  More autism bashing.  Let's blame autism for the high price of oil while we're at it.

Quote from: Kyle AaronBoth 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've chosen not to purchase 4E, so I haven't had much to say about it, though I have commented in some other threads.

Perception is everything in politics.

Quote from: JongWKPerception is everything in politics.

OK.  You win the thread.

Do I get a prize?

Quote from: droogI'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.

That's a huge Alt-history; blacks and hispanics hate each other.

Quote from: John MorrowWhere?  I've repeatedly said that America has made mistakes and done bad as well as good.  My argument is with the idea that everything America has done has been bad and that American involvement has always been all bad.  And in this particular thread, having to do with Barack Obama, my argument has been that America shouldn't leave until things are stable because even if you view various American entanglements around the world in places like Iraq and Vietnam has horrible mistakes that America had no business starting, leaving abruptly has usually made things even worse.

The "what if" game is always tricky.  For example, you argue that if we (the U.S.) had stayed in the Vietnam War, things would have been better for the Vietnamese and us than what happened in real history.  Saying that things got worse after we pulled out is deceptive, since we don't randomly pull out when things are getting better.  The issue is the hypothetical of what would have happened if we hadn't pulled out.  It's not an unreasonable opinion regarding Vietnam -- I can't offhand refute it, but it isn't a fact.  

Two things to keep in mind here: (1) I don't think any Obama supporters are actually arguing that "everything the U.S. does is always bad".  Conversely, (2) I don't think you or other conservatives are arguing "every U.S. invasion was always justified and good".  

Quote from: John MorrowUh, the Americans obliterated two Japanese cities with atomic bombs and typically killed more Japanese civilians in a single night of fire bombings on a Japanese city than Pinochet killed in his 20 years in power.  The United States bombed many Japanese cities, including much of Tokyo, flat.  That it happened before the end of the war is as irrelevant as making a distinction between the destruction the US caused invading Iraq or in the decade previously during and after the first Gulf War and the destruction that's happened since.  To the civilians, it doesn't make a lot of difference.  

You might want to take a good look at the plight of South Koreans, including the recent uncovering of mass graves of suspected leftists and communists killed during the war before you make that claim.

Well, I certainly think that the millions killed in bombings should be counted in the cost of the present state of countries like Japan.  One could compare these examples with countries where we didn't particularly interfere with communist takeover, like Latvia or Estonia, for example.  There were bloody purges under Stalin where opposition were removed in the years following the takeover -- which could be compared with the purges of communist sympathizers in South Korea.  It's a bit of an interesting question.  

I don't have a completely solid opinion, but I can see arguments either way with regards to Iraq.  It seems to me that the U.S. military is destabilizing there in that their presence promotes the proxy war you spoke of.  However, I'll certainly accept they also have stabilizing effects.

Quote from: WerekoalaThat's a huge Alt-history; blacks and hispanics hate each other.

There is a really cool scene in the movie The Second Civil War where the Hispanic mayor and police declare L.A. for Spanish-speaking Americans and black street gangs show up and start shooting at them for trying to take LA away from them.  

This is also one of the reasons why I think Richardson (who I think would be a better President than Clinton or Obama) has a good shot at the VP slot.

Quote from: jhkimThe "what if" game is always tricky.  For example, you argue that if we (the U.S.) had stayed in the Vietnam War, things would have been better for the Vietnamese and us than what happened in real history.  Saying that things got worse after we pulled out is deceptive, since we don't randomly pull out when things are getting better.  The issue is the hypothetical of what would have happened if we hadn't pulled out.  It's not an unreasonable opinion regarding Vietnam -- I can't offhand refute it, but it isn't a fact.

Actually, I think the US did an effective job of withdrawing from South Vietnam and leaving the Vietnamese in control, exactly like we need to in Iraq.  What cut the South Vietnamese off at the knees was a post-Watergate pro-North Vietnamese Democrat-controlled Congress that cut off the support we were giving the South Vietnamese which was allowing them to hold the North off.  So actually we did pull out of South Vietnam when things were getting better and the situation was stable for about 2 years until the North Vietnamese (and Khmer Rouge) got a helping hand from the post-Watergate Congress that took a "just let them win already" stance.

Quote from: jhkimTwo things to keep in mind here: (1) I don't think any Obama supporters are actually arguing that "everything the U.S. does is always bad".  Conversely, (2) I don't think you or other conservatives are arguing "every U.S. invasion was always justified and good".

While I don't think all or even them mainstream Obama supporters are arguing that everything the US does is always bad, I do think those people on the left are for the most part supporting him even over Clinton.  That his supporters have, for example, hung up Che Guevara flags at local campaign headquarters has not been missed.  He's also surrounded himself with foreign policy advisors that include Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Quote from: jhkimWell, I certainly think that the millions killed in bombings should be counted in the cost of the present state of countries like Japan.  One could compare these examples with countries where we didn't particularly interfere with communist takeover, like Latvia or Estonia, for example.  There were bloody purges under Stalin where opposition were removed in the years following the takeover -- which could be compared with the purges of communist sympathizers in South Korea.  It's a bit of an interesting question.

Sure, and every instance is different.  I think it's fair to both look at parallels and to point out differences.

Quote from: jhkimI don't have a completely solid opinion, but I can see arguments either way with regards to Iraq.  It seems to me that the U.S. military is destabilizing there in that their presence promotes the proxy war you spoke of.  However, I'll certainly accept they also have stabilizing effects.

I think the evidence, at least now after the surge, is that they are more of a stabilizing force than a destabilizing force.  I think it was easier to argue that they were more destabilizing and that things were being mismanaged before the surge.  And I suspect that many Iraqis have mixed feelings, both wanting the Americans to leave them alone but also fearing what will happen if they do.

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

Fucking Dutch...

RPGPundit

Quote from: John MorrowWhat's curious is that you and RPGPundit have problem spotting places where America helped thwart democracy for selfish reasons (e.g., Vietnam, various Latin American countries, etc.) but you seem disinterested in the role that other countries have played in thwarting democracy in other countries (e.g., the Soviet Union, China, some European nations, some Latin American nations, etc.) or the role that various indigenous individuals and groups play in thwarting it.  You also make it sound as if none of the other governments of the world have any self-interest or profit in thwarting democracy.  Perhaps I'm simply imaging the involvement of the French and people within the UN played in helping Saddam avoid the sanctions against Iraq designed to help and encourage the Iraqi people deal with Saddam themselves during the decade and a half between the end of the first Gulf War and the invasion of Iraq.

Dude, claiming I'm exclusively attacking U.S. policy, and then using the French as a counterexample, when only a handful of posts earlier I'd explicitly laid blame on the French for the entire situation that led to Vietnam... seems pretty self-defeating, doesn't it?

RPGPundit