TheRPGSite

Finally.

It remains to be seen whether he'll be able to pick himself up from out of the rubble and create something capable of beating McCain; but hey, let's consider the weight of what he's just accomplished: the Clintons were the ultimate constructions of the Democratic Party Machine, and the most skilled manipulators of that machine that had ever been created.

She was the heir-apparent, she felt she had a RIGHT to be the nominee and many in the party agreed with her about that, and they were the ones who'd made all the rules and held all the power.

And Obama still won. As of today, he owns the Democratic Party, and he gets to decide what it does and where it goes between here and November.
And frankly, as usual for the Democrats, its his presidency to lose.  If he loses in November, it won't be because of John McCain, it'll be because Obama failed in some personal way.

But in either case, what Obama had best remember is that the Machine is not his friend: the only Democrat to have won the white house in the last 28 years did so by explicitly ignoring what the Machine was telling him to do, by taking over that machine, and beating that entire Democrat Machine into submission to the point that he redefined what the Democratic party was all about.
Every other candidate went along with the sage advice of the wise experts at the DNC, figuring that these guys must know a lot about campaigning, since they've lost sooo many campaigns.
If Obama wants to win between now and November, he has to make sure that the Machine-oids don't take charge and change his campaign into Kerry II, or Gore III (with Kerry having been Gore II).

In other words, he has to keep being Obama.

RPGPundit

Quote28 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is "absolutely not" planning to concede the campaign to Barack Obama on Tuesday night, Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe told CNN on Tuesday.

"No one has the number to be the nominee of the Democratic party right now," he said.

McAuliffe, asked about an AP report that Clinton will acknowledge Tuesday night after the South Dakota and Montana primaries that Obama has the delegates to clinch the nomination for the November presidential election, replied: "They are 100 percent incorrect."

Maybe not quite yet. Remember, you have to burn the troll...

LOL.

Hilary was the ultimate min-maxer munchkin.  Can you imagine having her in your group?  Spending hours going through obscure interpretations of the DMG to prove she shouldn't take 8 hit points damage.

Every time the Democratic party - big government, welfare spending, nanny state - fucks up some portion of some significant process, I laugh and laugh and laugh, because it pleases me immensely to watch them fuck up every chance they get to end up in power.

And then a Republican gets elected, and says God 47 times in his inauguration, and I remember it doesn't matter who gets elected, they won't have anything to do with my positions or stances.

President John McCain.

Still sounds as crappy as it would have in 2000.

So yeah, no voting for me this time around.

Quote from: EngineEvery time the Democratic party - big government, welfare spending, nanny state - fucks up some portion of some significant process, I laugh and laugh and laugh, because it pleases me immensely to watch them fuck up every chance they get to end up in power.

And then a Republican gets elected, and says God 47 times in his inauguration, and I remember it doesn't matter who gets elected, they won't have anything to do with my positions or stances.

Ah the curse of not being a part of this abortion engine...

Yeah, all my Republican pals on other boards I frequent keep obsessing over Rev. Wright, Rezko and Bill Ayers bringing down the Obama campaign; saying that those people prove that O. isn't presidential/American/etc.

It hasn't happened yet, despite the media's best efforts.

Re Hillary: Last I heard, she'd have to win 400% of the remaining delegates up for grabs. :haw:

Quote from: EngineEvery time the Democratic party - big government, welfare spending, nanny state - fucks up some portion of some significant process, I laugh and laugh and laugh, because it pleases me immensely to watch them fuck up every chance they get to end up in power.

Take a look at how much the US federal budget (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms) increased over the last two Republican administrations.

From the standpoint of a country that has a budget surplus, and is paying off its federal debt, neither of the USA's parties seems about fiscal conservatism, though oddly one gets tarred with the big government brush a lot more than the other. Perhaps in the context of American public policy debate, 'big government' has nothing to do with actual spending.

Quote from: dsivisYeah, all my Republican pals on other boards I frequent keep obsessing over Rev. Wright...

Based, one presumes, on 10 seconds of soundbytes they've heard a thousand times, and not meaningfully on Rev Wright or the other tens of thousands of hours he's spoken in his life. *shakes head* Humans: can't live with them, and there are social mores against cannibalism.

I've heard Rev Wright speak on several occasions, and despite the fact that his politics and mine almost never coincide, I believe him to be one of the most intelligent and well-spoken persons on the national stage at the moment, particularly on issues of race, religion, and culture. Where he loses me is in his paranoiac conspiracy beliefs, and after Tuskegee, I can see where you could believe "the government" could do anything.

Yes, I wish he wouldn't sound like a nutter sometimes, but the things he's saying when he's not being a nutter are probably a damned site more cogent and meaningful than most of those I hear daily.

Maybe this makes me a bad citizen, but I'll worry about how much my government spends once I get control of what it does. Frankly almost nothing my government does is making me happy-be it how much they spend, or what they spend it on.

Quote from: James J SkachMaybe not quite yet. Remember, you have to burn the troll...

I see you, and raise you:  http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2008/06/03/5757636-ap.html

Basically, as I'm reading the AP story, Clinton hasn't officially conceded yet, so much as declared that when Obama gets the required delegates, she will concede, and that she acknowledges that as being a pretty foregone conclusion at this point.  

She's just being good old Hillary, and refusing to flat drop out so she can score political points, and try and lean on Obama for some more support for her own platforms, before the stake finally gets driven through her heart.

"I fought the law and the law won!"

Quote from: Serious Paul"I fought the law and the law won!"

Who doesn't love Bobby Fuller?

Quote from: HaffrungPerhaps in the context of American public policy debate, 'big government' has nothing to do with actual spending.

No, it doesn't, which is one of the worst sins of the party of Lincoln. [Not really being the party of Lincoln is one of its sins, too.] But it goes beyond just this excellent point you make, about how Republicans cut programs yet increase spending: in fact, they often don't cut programs, either!

Much of this is due to partisan deadlock, and the crippling Washington system whose checks and balances have been undermined by the ascendancy of two parties to near-utter control.

But not all of it. Not nearly.

The problem seems to be power. Republicans talk about small government, until they are the government, and then their solution to every problem is the hammer they're holding. Part of the problem is that the citizenry doesn't want to be told, "Yes, we're going to lower your taxes, but it means you're going to need to learn to do some shit for yourself now." A lot of it is what you have to do to get in power: you've promised a thousand groups you'll push their agenda, which you can only do with legislation. And a lot of it is the simple allure of power: when you're holding the world's biggest hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

There's one solution of which I am aware, and it isn't years of Republican dominance tearing down this enormous structure bit-by-but. No, it's to destroy the structure and rebuild from scratch. You can't turn back the clock on welfare, or social security, or national parks; the citizenry won't tolerate it. What you can do is overthrow the government, and reform it, although modern experience suggests the overthrower shouldn't be the reformer, as people will be so pissed at you for taking away their government pacifiers that they won't respond well when you start building roads for them.

No, Republicans are, once in power, no more "small government" than their counterparts across the aisle, with too few exceptions. The solution will probably need to lie not only outside those parties, but outside the political arena altogether; our Constitution was specifically built to invest the government with inertia, so too much change could not happen too quickly; that government must cease to exist before rapid, drastic change could occur.

Quote from: EnginePart of the problem is that the citizenry doesn't want to be told, "Yes, we're going to lower your taxes, but it means you're going to need to learn to do some shit for yourself now."

I agree with this premise, but would include the words "A monumentally huge" at the start of the sentence.

However:

Quote from: EngineThere's one solution of which I am aware, and it isn't years of Republican dominance tearing down this enormous structure bit-by-but. No, it's to destroy the structure and rebuild from scratch. You can't turn back the clock on welfare, or social security, or national parks; the citizenry won't tolerate it. What you can do is overthrow the government, and reform it, although modern experience suggests the overthrower shouldn't be the reformer, as people will be so pissed at you for taking away their government pacifiers that they won't respond well when you start building roads for them.

I disagree that this is the solution.

Therefore, I will fight you to the death in a Thunderdome match on pay per view - the proceeds of which will go...to our families so they can escape this nonsense and become self-sustaining cultures on an island somewhere.

Sweet! Two men enter, one man leave!

Quote from: WerekoalaSo yeah, no voting for me this time around.

Honestly?  I figured with all the Clinton die-hards fleeing the party, you would've stood a decent chance in November.

!i!

(P.S. Even at this late stage, it's still too early to declare Obama the nominee.  It ain't over till the fat lady sings...or the senator from New York in this case.)

Quote from: James J Skach...to our families so they can escape this nonsense and become self-sustaining cultures on an island somewhere.

I've been considering this for some time now, ever since I read of Robert of Molesme and the founding of the Cistercian order, and how they used the Rule of St Benedict to establish small, self-sufficient communities of like-minded people. Much of the manual labor required at the time could be performed by waterwheel or windmill, and the remainder isn't onerous. [My family already maintains a communal garden which provides much of our food.]

Plus, I don't like people very much, and the more of them there are in a given area, the less I like them. So I'm thinking island nonsense escape is the way to go.

Koala - would you rather a guy who might do some republican things, or someone that wouldn't do any?

That's my conumdrum. Hence I'm voting McStain. Ew.

Quote from: Engine...I'm thinking island nonsense escape is the way to go.

Provided the people already there are okay with you moving in. ;)  Personally, I'm quite happy that my wife has family with grazing and crop-land on the Big Island.

!i!

Quote from: shewolfKoala - would you rather a guy who might do some republican things...

You mean like raiding the Federal till, cronyism, and nation-building? :haw:

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaProvided the people already there are okay with you moving in. ;)

Well, I'm thinking an island with low occupation or no occupation at all - I've a couple selected in the Caribbean where growing crops shouldn't be too difficult, and one in northern Canada where at least I know you can grow mosquitoes - but if I ended up on an island with too many occupants, I suspect the war for the territory would be brief and overwhelmingly successful. But that's because I've seen the gun cabinets of the people I'd take with me. ;)

Quote from: EngineNo, Republicans are, once in power, no more "small government" than their counterparts across the aisle, with too few exceptions. The solution will probably need to lie not only outside those parties, but outside the political arena altogether; our Constitution was specifically built to invest the government with inertia, so too much change could not happen too quickly; that government must cease to exist before rapid, drastic change could occur.

They're not "small government" in the sense of less spending.  They're "small government" in the sense of interfering less in the lives of the people.  Yeah, that's it.  They stand up for people being able to watch the media they want, marry whoever they want, take the substances they want, and do what they want to their own bodies.  

Oops!  Wait...  :p  

Seriously, in the U.S., it seems reducing spending and the national debt is always something that the party out of power attacks the party in power with.  Similarly, there doesn't seem to be a significant difference in government pushing into people's lives.  They just have different spins on similar approaches.  Republicans tend to trumpet about family values when pushing to suppress offensive material, and then accuse the Democrats of enforcing "political correctness".  Democrats tend to trumpet about respecting minorities or such, and then accuse Republicans of "censorship".

Quote from: jhkimThey're not "small government" in the sense of less spending.  They're "small government" in the sense of interfering less in the lives of the people.  Yeah, that's it.  They stand up for people being able to watch the media they want, marry whoever they want, take the substances they want, and do what they want to their own bodies.

I know, isn't that the most ridiculous thing? That moral interference - and the astonishing prevalence of incredibly religious persons - is one of the many reasons I'm not a Republican. I'm not a Libertarian, either, but one could use the word libertarian in its adjective sense to describe me.

Before I really understood what being a Republican meant in practice [on the national level, in any case; things are very different at "lower" levels], I thought I was Republican, but that was because I was fiscally and governmentally conservative. However, I am socially liberal, to a degree which terrifies some, and so I've never been able to truly find a home with the Republicans. Nor, of course, with the Democrats, with whom I have serious conflicts regarding the most desirable role of government, particularly federal government.

Quote from: jhkimSimilarly, there doesn't seem to be a significant difference in government pushing into people's lives.  They just have different spins on similar approaches.  Republicans tend to trumpet about family values when pushing to suppress offensive material, and then accuse the Democrats of enforcing "political correctness".  Democrats tend to trumpet about respecting minorities or such, and then accuse Republicans of "censorship".

Well, in the end, they're mostly wealthy white men, who have more in common than they have differences. This is a flaw in our electoral process, and I don't have a solution for it. It needs a solution, though.

Quote from: EngineI thought I was Republican, but that was because I was fiscally and governmentally conservative. However, I am socially liberal, to a degree which terrifies some, and so I've never been able to truly find a home with the Republicans. Nor, of course, with the Democrats, with whom I have serious conflicts regarding the most desirable role of government, particularly federal government.

I wonder how many of us there are. There might be some quibbling over s few specifics, but for the most part I bet there's quite a few.

It's a shame, really.

I don't have access to islands, so I'm laying the groundwork for two compounds on either side of Lake Michigan - ironically neither in my home state.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaYou mean like raiding the Federal till, cronyism, and nation-building? :haw:

!i!

Um. Conservative judges?

That's all I can think of. But a crumb is better than none.



Ian, FFS don't make me more depressed about this fucking election than I already am!

Quote from: EngineBefore I really understood what being a Republican meant in practice [on the national level, in any case; things are very different at "lower" levels], I thought I was Republican, but that was because I was fiscally and governmentally conservative. However, I am socially liberal, to a degree which terrifies some, and so I've never been able to truly find a home with the Republicans. Nor, of course, with the Democrats, with whom I have serious conflicts regarding the most desirable role of government, particularly federal government.

You know, my liberal friends are always aghast when I told them I registered Republican at age 18 (I'm independent now).  And you've articulated exactly why I did what I did.

Or, as I tell my friends, the Republican party you know now is not the Republican party I joined in my youth.

Quote from: shewolfUm. Conservative judges?

Hey, you get a few, we get a few.  That's the way it's supposed to work, isn't it?  That way you have a Supreme Court that is (hopefully) representative of the nation as a whole.  And don't forget that both "conservative" and "liberal" Supreme Justices tend to moderate over time.  So, on this point, I see this as a win-win for everybody.

QuoteIan, FFS don't make me more depressed about this fucking election than I already am!

Oh, don't be depressed.  My family and I have survived George W. Bush's dissident labor camps just fine by ratting out our barracks-mates, and are looking forward to true freedom for the first time in nearly six years.  I'm sure you and your family will surive the camps just fine, too ("Meet the new boss, same as the old boss..."). :)

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaHey, you get a few, we get a few.  That's the way it's supposed to work, isn't it?  That way you have a Supreme Court that is (hopefully) representative of the nation as a whole.  And don't forget that both "conservative" and "liberal" Supreme Justices tend to moderate over time.  So, on this point, I see this as a win-win for everybody.

Supposed to work? really? The judges are supposed to be "representative of the nation?"

Quote from: James J SkachSupposed to work? really? The judges are supposed to be "representative of the nation?"

Opinions differ. They aren't supposed to represent a current vogue in political opinion, certainly, especially as a whole.  So the bench is comprised of differing opinions that bring differing viewpoints to bear on important cases to deliberate, instead of stacking the bench in favor of a particular outcome.

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaHonestly?  I figured with all the Clinton die-hards fleeing the party, you would've stood a decent chance in November.

I'm not on the ticket. ;)

Quote from: shewolfKoala - would you rather a guy who might do some republican things, or someone that wouldn't do any?

That's my conumdrum. Hence I'm voting McStain. Ew.

Maybe he'll get a decent VP candidate and then I can vote for him in hopes he'd die in the first 6 months.

Yeah, I went there.

Just overheard Hillary's speech....


 Gotta give her credit - she's NOT conceding.
Kind of admire her stamina and stubborness.


- Ed C.

"It's my Party and we'll lose if I want to, lose if I want to..."

:D

Quote from: Kyle Aaron"It's my Party and we'll lose if I want to, lose if I want to..."

:D

You may be right - but thank goodness you posted that instead of me.

This whole election year has been pretty entertaining ...if a bit long at times.



- Ed C.

Okay, so now it looks like it's Obama's party.  And it was one classy speech he gave in St. Paul.

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaOpinions differ. They aren't supposed to represent a current vogue in political opinion, certainly, especially as a whole.  So the bench is comprised of differing opinions that bring differing viewpoints to bear on important cases to deliberate, instead of stacking the bench in favor of a particular outcome.

You do understand separation of powers, right?

Quote from: HaffrungTake a look at how much the US federal budget (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms) increased over the last two Republican administrations.

In the case of Clinton and George W. Bush, they are examples respectively of what happens when one party controls the presidency and the other party controls Congress and what happens when one party controls it all.  One party rule, regardless of the party, tends to be a disaster because they just don't say "no" to their own.  My concern is that Obama is going to turn out to be Jimmy Carter II and I'm not the only one seeing the parallels (http://www.normantranscript.com/opinion/local_story_151002337?keyword=topstory).

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaAnd it was one classy speech he gave in St. Paul.

So, how much is all of that stuff he's promising -- lower-cost health care, college education as a birthright, more teachers, pre-K programs, etc. going to cost?  Does anyone actually care?

Probably less than perpetuating the occupation of Iraq. Anyone actually care about that?

!i!

Oh Cmon Jon M. - its the same with both parties.

 They promise a bunch of shit, then get all anal-retentive and can't deliver.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaProbably less than perpetuating the occupation of Iraq. Anyone actually care about that?

Are you sure?  And do you really think that simply pulling out of Iraq will have no cost?

Quote from: KoltarOh Cmon Jon M. - its the same with both parties.

 They promise a bunch of shit, then get all anal-retentive and can't deliver.

Sure, but Obama is supposed to be Change We Can Believe In.  Is he?  Should I believe him or is he just another politician selling wolf tickets?

Quote from: HaffrungTake a look at how much the US federal budget (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms) increased over the last two Republican administrations.

From the standpoint of a country that has a budget surplus, and is paying off its federal debt, neither of the USA's parties seems about fiscal conservatism, though oddly one gets tarred with the big government brush a lot more than the other. Perhaps in the context of American public policy debate, 'big government' has nothing to do with actual spending.

Both sides seem to really be about "Big government", its just that one side also clings dearly to the ideological belief that "government doesn't work", and proceed to do their damnedest to prove that belief to be true.

The other side often makes a fine job of demonstrating the limitations, flaws, and failings of big government, but at least they are actually trying their damnedest to make it work, because they believe in it.

There is no real party of small government.

RPGPundit

Quote from: James J SkachI wonder how many of us there are. There might be some quibbling over s few specifics, but for the most part I bet there's quite a few.

More than I think any of you individually realize. "Socially liberal, fiscally conservative" is a popular opinion among those people your age that I know. If a candidate could catch on to that, and somehow capitalize on it, that would be nice. But campaigns are not won on the basis of policy so much as publicity. You get publicity with money, and money with lobbyists. At least from the looks of things.

FWIW, I'd sign on to the socially liberal fiscally conservative thing myself, but for the exception of my preference for universal health care. Because I'm poor, and not being able to go to the doctor or the dentist when I need to sucks. Maybe it's selfish; I really don't care.

(http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2008/01/28/tomo/story.jpg)

The future of the country is dependent on education.  I think we can afford to spend a bit more money on it.

I'd edit this:

Quote from: KoltarOh Cmon Jon M. - its the same with both parties. They promise a bunch of shit, then get all anal-retentive and can't deliver.

To read like this

QuoteIts the same with both parties. They promise a bunch of shit, and can't deliver because they promise too much to too many different people.

There. Fixed.

Quote from: RPGPunditThere is no real party of small government.

There are real parties who believe in small government, they just aren't one of the two in dominant power, which is one of the problems.

Quote from: John MorrowAnd do you really think that simply pulling out of Iraq will have no cost?

I didn't say that, did I? And you don't sound so sure yourself.

Boy, those grapes there sure do look shitty.

!i!

My friend sent me a link to a story in The Daily Mash entitled America Waits for Clinton to Fuck-off (http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/america-waits-for-clinton-to-fuck-off-20080604998/).

My favorite quote is right in the beginning:

QuoteSources close to the New York senator suggested she is now ready to pick a date to concede the election, and has already pencilled-in April 23rd, 2017.

Quote from: EngineThere are real parties who believe in small government, they just aren't one of the two in dominant power, which is one of the problems.

Who? The Libertarians? When they sell out utterly on any principles they might ever have had and make the likes of Bob Barr their candidate?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditWho? The Libertarians? When they sell out utterly on any principles they might ever have had and make the likes of Bob Barr their candidate?

The LNC does not equal the Libertarian party.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaI didn't say that, did I? And you don't sound so sure yourself.

It's not like we don't have any historical examples to look at, especially if we take off the rose colored clases that allow people to believe that Southeast Asia was one big Kumbaya fest after the United States abruptly left and cut off aid.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaBoy, those grapes there sure do look shitty.

What sour grapes?

Vietnam seems to be doing okay these days.

The real questions would be what the region was like before western powers started fucking with it; and whether a continued presence there would really have meant things would have gone better (either for the U.S. or for the people of that region) if they'd stuck around.

Pointing out that that things went badly when the Americans left is a convenient way of ignoring the reality that they had no business being there in the first place, and that things had pretty much gone to shit WHILE they were there.

RPGPundit

Quote from: John MorrowIt's not like we don't have any historical examples to look at, especially if we take off the rose colored clases that allow people to believe that Southeast Asia was one big Kumbaya fest after the United States abruptly left and cut off aid.

"We must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in—but start leaving we must."  
   - Barack Obama, June 3, 2008


Not exactly the Fall of Saigon he's describing, is it? Yeah, what sour grapes?

!i!

The fall of Saigon was preceded three years earlier by the departure of US combat troops. A major nothern offensive in '72 was fought off mostly by the ARVN and the USAF, but in '75 US support was not forthcoming, and what was intended by the north as an offensive for diplomatic positioning became a conquest.

Of course, the Republic had only one ambitious or fearful neighbour, and had no internal factions worth speaking of - just the commies and everyone else. Today's Iraq has a multiple ambitious/fearful neighbours, and multiple internal factions... which could make things as messy after a US pullout as they are today. So I think the parallels are closer with Lebanon rather than Vietnam.

I've always felt the Vietnam parallels were forced, mostly because the people in power are so caught up in the 'defining moment' of 'their time' that they can't seem to let it go.

I watch this election with the boredom of someone who realizes that whomever gets elected I will ultimately be upset with their presidency.  I vote for Porn AND Guns*, but there is no party for that...




* Obviously, Republicans are the Pro-Gun party, the Porn comment comes from the liberal freedoms of the dems, the general liberal politics of the Larry Flint crowd, and the fact (noted by freinds) that during Democratic presidencies the availability and transgressiveness of the smut seems to increase, while during republican presidencies it seems to receed. I noticed when watching Planet Terror again that there is, in fact, no real nudity at all, despite the 'main character' being, of all things, a stripper... and with an actress who is notably 'unshy'... and in a flim based notionally off of the 'exploitation' cinema which was noticably permissive in its time... of course Bush was/is president during its release.  OF course, I could be smoking crack. WHich party supports that again?

Quote from: Kyle AaronOf course, the Republic had only one ambitious or fearful neighbour, and had no internal factions worth speaking of - just the commies and everyone else. Today's Iraq has a multiple ambitious/fearful neighbours, and multiple internal factions... which could make things as messy after a US pullout as they are today. So I think the parallels are closer with Lebanon rather than Vietnam.

Yes, and you will recall that it was Ronald Motherfucking Reagan, the God-King of the Republicans, who decided to "cut and run" there.  I guess he was just a "defeatist" and a "collaborator" who wanted to allow "the terrorists to win".

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditYes, and you will recall that it was Ronald Motherfucking Reagan, the God-King of the Republicans, who decided to "cut and run" there.  I guess he was just a "defeatist" and a "collaborator" who wanted to allow "the terrorists to win".

RPGPundit

So you're saying he was brilliant and thoughtful for pulling out? Is that faint praise I hear?

Nah, not from Pundy.

Quote from: WerekoalaSo you're saying he was brilliant and thoughtful for pulling out? Is that faint praise I hear?

Nah, not from Pundy.

Republican presidents have been basically evil since Nixon (with the exception of Gerald Ford), but they used to be a hell of a lot smarter, at least. Reagan had the basic good sense to get the fuck out of Lebanon, and Bush Sr. had the good sense not to actually invade Iraq.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditYes, and you will recall that it was Ronald Motherfucking Reagan, the God-King of the Republicans, who decided to "cut and run" there.

Well, I was thinking of Iraq and Lebanon as parallels in terms of their gong through multi-faction civil wars and having ambitious neighbours, and in terms of their likely fates in the wake of a pull-out of a Great Power.

Lebanon's multi-faction civil war couldn't go on without the help of Israel, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and so on - its ambitious neighbours. Once Israel and Syria stopped fucking about there, and the various Arab countries dropped funding for the many and various little insurgent groups, the Lebanese found some peace. That leaves only Iran fucking about, with Hezbollah, which wouldn't last six months without them.

Afghanistan, Somalia, Lebanon - these are all countries which have had multi-faction civil wars which settled down when they were left alone by the rest of the world, but flared up again when the other countries decided to "help".

In the case of Iraq the multi-faction civil war was unleashed by the US invasion, rather than being entirely domestic like those other countries, but it doesn't make much difference in the end. If you stay they'll go through 20 years of utter misery and mass death and then settle down. If you pull out they'll go through 2-10 years of utter misery and mass death and then settle down - unless someone else decides to "help" them instead.

We draw parallels with Vietnam because it was a relatively simple conflict - you had the Republic, the ambitious commie neighbour and the local commie sympathisers, and that was it. But Afghanistan, Somalia, Lebanon and now Iraq had dozens of factions. And not all of them even want to achieve power, they're happy just making sure no-one else has power and looting away - which makes them a bit hard to negotiate with or properly defeat.

We also draw parallels with Vietnam because it saves our egos. Vietnam was an existing conflict which by entering we drew out a bit and possibly made bloodier by our "help" - but it wasn't started by us, or caused by us. Whereas with Iraq, we started it. They'd be living in oppression and peace without us, and live in oppression and bloody conflict with us. Here in the West we have this whole way of looking at wars - that we don't start them. That's why what used to be our Departments of War are now Departments of Defence.

We don't like to think that we started a big fucking mess which has caused the deaths of about a million people, and driven millions of the best and brightest - those who could rebuild the country we've destroyed - out of it. That's kind of embarassing to us. And all those different factions are so confusing, who among us could name even five of them? So rather than draw parallels with Lebanon, we draw them with Vietnam.  That makes things simpler and makes us feel less guilty.

In years to come we'll put all the blame on Bush and Blair and Howard, so we can avoid taking any responsibility ourselves. We like to do that.

Just as we like to put everything onto one leader to avoid our responsibility for the bad we've done, so too do we like to put all our hopes and dreams onto one leader to avoid responsibility for fixing things up. That's what this hero-cult stuff is about, it just happens to have fallen on Obama today.

There's too much worship and condemnation of "great heroes" in the modern West, and not enough sense of responsibility. In the end a US President is only one man, and he can't do a fucking thing without at least half the 500-odd Congresspeople behind him, and that lot were elected by a hundred million or so Americans. Whatever good or bad a US President does is not merely to their credit or blame, but falls as well on the citizens of that country. Likewise, in the UK, Australia and so on.

So, okay, Reagan was a senile twit, Dubya's dumb as a box of hammers, Clinton was corrupt - whatever, so what, they were elected, and so were the Congresses that passed their laws and policies. It's all down to the people in the end. And that's the same in any country, I only mention US Presidents because it's names everyone will know, and is the topic of this thread.

Let's set aside this hero-cult nonsense, it's all rather Napoleonic, a bit of a wank, really. Let's be citizens, and take responsibility for the good and the bad our leaders do in our names. You know, like in a democracy.

Quote from: walkerpVietnam seems to be doing okay these days.

So is Germany, Japan, and China so does that mean we should be indifferent to genocide, atomic bombings, and famines that kill tens of millions?  Of course it's convenient that dead people can't complain.  And compared to South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and other countries that remained under the American umbrella, Vietnam is at best doing OK if you ignore the standard of living and political repression.  Dead bodies, oppression, and low standards of living are easy to hand-wave away when you don't have to deal with them or know them.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe real questions would be what the region was like before western powers started fucking with it; and whether a continued presence there would really have meant things would have gone better (either for the U.S. or for the people of that region) if they'd stuck around.

The 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.  Yes, 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?

Given 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), I 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.  Of course it's easy to spot the countries that you like.  Just look for the places where the people are getting into leaky boats to escape from.

Quote from: RPGPunditPointing out that that things went badly when the Americans left is a convenient way of ignoring the reality that they had no business being there in the first place, and that things had pretty much gone to shit WHILE they were there.

So 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.

Quote from: John MorrowSo 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?

That would be for the citizens of the countries involved to decide. You make the motives of the West sound so noble. You're right, dead bodies can't complain. And Vietnam is better off without the US. Even with all it's problems, it's people are attempting to solve their own problems and in the process becoming one of the rising powers in South East Asia.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Ian Absentia"We must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in—but start leaving we must."

A good example of why he has no business being a project manager, never mind a president.  When you fix the timetable of a project, you inevitably wind up sacrificing the results to meet the timetable.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaNot exactly the Fall of Saigon he's describing, is it?

Do you really want me to provide you with quotes from post-Watergate Democrats catapulted into power by a backlash against an unpopular two-term Republican President  about what they thought would happen in Vietnam, Cambodia, and elsewhere when they cut off miltitary aid when they didn't have the 20/20 hindsight of looking backward to help them?

Yes, Ronald Reagan cut-and-ran out of Lebanon but it was already a mess by then.  I know it's really hard because the mainstream media has no interest in looking closely at it but try, really try, to take a good close look at the late 1970s starting from when the Democrats got post-Watergate control of Congress in 1974 through the Carter Presidency in 1980.  Yeah, you remember Jimmy Carter, the idiot that won't shut up despite being the worst President of the 20th Century and probably the worst ex-President, too.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaYeah, what sour grapes?

What sour grapes?  It's called not wanting to repeat the late 1970s.

Quote from: Kyle AaronA major nothern offensive in '72 was fought off mostly by the ARVN and the USAF, but in '75 US support was not forthcoming, and what was intended by the north as an offensive for diplomatic positioning became a conquest.

The support "was not forthcoming" because the Democrat-controlled congress, against the advice of the Ford Administration, decided to cut off all military aid to South Vietnam and Cambodia.  Even if you want to argue that the United States played a large role in the mess in Vietnam and Cambodia (and one can certainly make that case), cutting and running was not good for the indigenous people unless you want to take walkerp's optimistic long term view that things will probably won't be all that bad after a few decades and a few million dead bodies.

Quote from: Kyle AaronOf course, the Republic had only one ambitious or fearful neighbour, and had no internal factions worth speaking of - just the commies and everyone else. Today's Iraq has a multiple ambitious/fearful neighbours, and multiple internal factions... which could make things as messy after a US pullout as they are today. So I think the parallels are closer with Lebanon rather than Vietnam.

Again, a reminder of what Lebanon was like before it all fell apart. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=nT1YmP0CO_w&feature=related)

Quote from: David RThat would be for the citizens of the countries involved to decide.

If 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.  The South Vietnamese certainly didn't vote to be conquered and the South Koreans seem to be pretty happy to have tens of thousands of American troops on their soil more than a half-century after they fought the North Koreans back.  If you haven't noticed, North Vietnam conquered South Vietnam and many got into leaky boats to get away.  Does getting in a leaky vote count as a decision about how they felt?

Quote from: David RYou make the motives of the West sound so noble. You're right, dead bodies can't complain.

In the big scheme of things, they often are.

Quote from: David RAnd Vietnam is better off without the US. Even with all it's problems, it's people are attempting to solve their own problems and in the process becoming one of the rising powers in South East Asia.

After killing tens if not hundreds of thousands, re-education camps, property confiscation, and the million or so that fled to other countries to get away and after decades of political repression.  You talk about the Vietnamese people solving their own problems.  Do they have free speech?  Do they have free and open elections?  Can the people travel freely and buy and sell freely?  And they've been a rising power in South East Asia since the 1990s, yet still they lag behind the nations not blessed with Communism.

It's also important to note that the people in the South didn't want to be conquered and the people in the North didn't have a choice.  And even if you want to argue that Vietnam or Korea should be unified, it's absurd to argue that letting the North conquer the South was the best way to do it.  That's like arguing that West Germany should have submitted to East Germany rather than waiting for the latter to collapse and join the West.  If unification and the will of the people was and is so important, why didn't the North simply agree to political unification under a free democratic system of government rather than conquering the South and then oppressing their people for decades?

Sorry, not buying it.  I find it curious that you have no problem spotting the flaws of the West but forgiving the flaws of the North Vietnamese.  It takes two to fight a war, yet only the West is expected to surrender and play nice.

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.  The South Vietnamese certainly didn't vote to be conquered and the South Koreans seem to be pretty happy to have tens of thousands of American troops on their soil more than a half-century after they fought the North Koreans back.  If you haven't noticed, North Vietnam conquered South Vietnam and many got into leaky boats to get away.  Does getting in a leaky vote count as a decision about how they felt?

Who the hell says free elections is the only way to decide a nation's fate. There's revolution. Blood will be spilt and it should be their own. They want freedom, they fight for it.

QuoteIn the big scheme of things, they often are.

No. We are living in the big scheme of things.

QuoteAfter killing tens if not hundreds of thousands, re-education camps, property confiscation, and the million or so that fled to other countries to get away and after decades of political repression.  You talk about the Vietnamese people solving their own problems.  Do they have free speech?  Do they have free and open elections?  Can the people travel freely and buy and sell freely?  And they've been a rising power in South East Asia since the 1990s, yet still they lag behind the nations not blessed with Communism.

Who the hell cares about free speech. Who the hell cares about elections. Seriously there a whole set a different values in this part of the world. Do people want more freedom ? Sure. And it's up to them to take it....if that's what they want. People in China seem to be doing fine without free speech and elections. And those who care about such issues - if they care about it at all, because if you ever stepped foot in China, it's all about the money - they fight for it.

QuoteIt's also important to note that the people in the South didn't want to be conquered and the people in the North didn't have a choice.  And even if you want to argue that Vietnam or Korea should be unified, it's absurd to argue that letting the North conquer the South was the best way to do it.  That's like arguing that West Germany should have submitted to East Germany rather than waiting for the latter to collapse and join the West.  If unification and the will of the people was and is so important, why didn't the North simply agree to political unification under a free democratic system of government rather than conquering the South and then oppressing their people for decades?

Again with the nobility. Asia ain't Europe.

QuoteSorry, not buying it.  I find it curious that you have no problem spotting the flaws of the West but forgiving the flaws of the North Vietnamese.  It takes two to fight a war, yet only the West is expected to surrender and play nice.

We ain't talking about the flaws of the North  Vietnamese, here are we. I was commenting on your usual defence of American foreign policy. Normally I'd shrug it off, but when it comes to my region, I get a bit testy. And stop showing that video of Lebanon. As though Iraq is anywhere near what Lebanon was. Well it could have been maybe after Saddam or you know, you didn't bomb the shit out of the place.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: John MorrowThe South Vietnamese certainly didn't vote to be conquered and the South Koreans seem to be pretty happy to have tens of thousands of American troops on their soil more than a half-century after they fought the North Koreans back.

After the 1954 peace accords between the French, the Republic and the North, there was supposed to be a plebescite on uniting the north with the south.

This plebescite was never held, prevented by the Saigon government at the behest of the US. Why? Because they thought the Communists would win, and Vietnam would be unified.

The US prevented a free vote for the country's future. The US later sponsored military coups in the Republic, supported the use of torture in prisons, carried out extrajudicial executions, and so on. Hardly the stuff of democracy.

South Koreans are not entirely happy with the US presence. Some of them perceive the US as a greater threat than the North, and many perceive the US as an obstacle to reunification. Obviously I don't agree - Pyongyang doesn't want to be unified with the South under joint or Seoul's leadership - but that's how many South Koreans perceive things. They also perceive the US as being partly responsible for their military government for thirty years.

The US sponsored the South Korean military government (openly military, and subverted democracy with military support) from 1961-1992. Again, not desperately democratic. Certainly better than the North, but... would you like your leg cut off at the ankle, or the hip?

As citizens of countries which have free and fair democratic elections, we are in part responsible for the good and bad our leaders do. No US President or British or Australian Prime Minister can do a damned thing on their own. They do what they believe is in the interests of their countries, and this perception of our interests is shaped by what we tell them and our Parliament Members, the stories in the media, and so on. We're responsible. Demonising this leader or idealising this other leader - that's just us evading our responsibilities as citizens. It's time to stop being infants, be adults and take responsibility.

Obama's just one guy. Get over it.

Quote from: David R. As though Iraq is anywhere near what Lebanon was. Well it could have been maybe after Saddam or you know, you didn't bomb the shit out of the place.

Regards,
David R

Most of the ongoing infrastructure damage was not caused by US bombardment but by home grown and foreign 'freedom fighters' who wanted to make the US invasion get bogged down in  'not helping the people'.  Most efforts to restore basic and more complex infrastructural support (water, power, telecommunications... that sort of shit) were delayed and even stymied by Iraqis, and their loss was, at the start of the land invasion, minimal due to bombing.

The actual 'war', if you want to keep it separate from the ongoing occupation was almost surgical in its neatness.  You'll want to rebut by pointing out the handful of civilian casualties that made international news, and the statistics for the ones that didn't, I'm sure. I'll rebut that by pointing out that most, if not all surgeries, involve damaging healthy tissue to get at the unhealthy tissue.  The difference between surgery and butchery is how much healthy tissue is harmed.

I was IN Iraq within days of the 'War' and what I saw was far different from the smoking ruin you are implying.   I could also point out that I was directly involved with a significant portion of the repairs, specifically building bridge easements and repairing roadways.  Neglect was one of the biggest problems that needed fixing, not 'bombing damage'.

Quote from: SpikeMost of the ongoing infrastructure damage was not caused by US bombardment but by home grown and foreign 'freedom fighters' who wanted to make the US invasion get bogged down in  'not helping the people'.  Most efforts to restore basic and more complex infrastructural support (water, power, telecommunications... that sort of shit) were delayed and even stymied by Iraqis, and their loss was, at the start of the land invasion, minimal due to bombing.

Well 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.

QuoteThe actual 'war', if you want to keep it separate from the ongoing occupation was almost surgical in its neatness.  You'll want to rebut by pointing out the handful of civilian casualties that made international news, and the statistics for the ones that didn't, I'm sure. I'll rebut that by pointing out that most, if not all surgeries, involve damaging healthy tissue to get at the unhealthy tissue.  The difference between surgery and butchery is how much healthy tissue is harmed.

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

QuoteI was IN Iraq within days of the 'War' and what I saw was far different from the smoking ruin you are implying.   I could also point out that I was directly involved with a significant portion of the repairs, specifically building bridge easements and repairing roadways.  Neglect was one of the biggest problems that needed fixing, not 'bombing damage'.

If 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.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RWho the hell says free elections is the only way to decide a nation's fate. There's revolution. Blood will be spilt and it should be their own. They want freedom, they fight for it.

Revolutions rarely work out well for "the people" and they enslave them at least as often as they free them.

Quote from: David RNo. We are living in the big scheme of things.

Of 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.

Quote from: David RWho the hell cares about free speech. Who the hell cares about elections. Seriously there a whole set a different values in this part of the world.

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

Are 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?

Quote from: David RDo people want more freedom ? Sure. And it's up to them to take it....if that's what they want.

Yeah, 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?  Or the protests in Tibet?  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.

Quote from: David RPeople in China seem to be doing fine without free speech and elections. And those who care about such issues - if they care about it at all, because if you ever stepped foot in China, it's all about the money - they fight for it.

It 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. And there are plenty of Chinese protesters, including various Falun Gong protests near various government offices in New York City.  I guess they weren't authentic enough to not care about freedom.  

North Korea looks like a great place to live, too. (http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=Songunblog)  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:

Quote from: David RAgain with the nobility. Asia ain't Europe.

You 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.  

Quote from: David RWe ain't talking about the flaws of the North  Vietnamese, here are we.

No, and we never are.  The only flaws we are allowed to talk about are those of America and the West.  

Quote from: David RI was commenting on your usual defence of American foreign policy. Normally I'd shrug it off, but when it comes to my region, I get a bit testy.

Sure, 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?

Quote from: David RAnd stop showing that video of Lebanon.

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

Quote from: David RAs though Iraq is anywhere near what Lebanon was. Well it could have been maybe after Saddam or you know, you didn't bomb the shit out of the place.

We 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?  Let 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.

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.

But to get the full perspective for comparison, you also need to consider teh damage caused to Iraq by Saddam Hussein which includes, among other things, the Iran-Iraq War, the invasion of Kuwait and the resulting reprisals, the killing of Kurds including the use of poison gas, the subjugation of the Marsh Arabs and the purposeful destruction of the Marsh environment that they inhabited, the ongoing political and personal jailings, mutilations, rapes, and murders, the hardships caused by the sanctions against Iraq as a result of Saddam's various abuses, and so on.  It's not as if America invaded paradise and turned it into Hell.

Quote from: David RFurthermore 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.

Absolutely.  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.

Quote from: David RAlso, 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.

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

Quote from: David RSpike I don't mean to be rude, but I find this analogy distasteful. Like Morrow said, the dead can't complain.

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

Quote from: David RThe invasion caused a massive amount of damage. Maybe not the bombings itself - although I question this - but definitely the occupation.

Saddam 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.

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. (http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=Songunblog)  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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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. :D

"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."

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 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24695113/) 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 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24695113/) 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

Quote from: John MorrowWhile 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.

Jesus Christ, so we have to destroy democracy in order to save it?! That's your argument?

I mean shit, you really don't have a leg to stand on here, Morrow. The moment you overturn a democratic election, whatever you think might be your motives, whatever you've done has not been in support of democracy.

You can't have democracy without the will of the people: in some theoretical country's case, if the majority of the people actually supported an anti-democratic movement, then I would argue that at that time its not only unethical to try to oppose their position but utterly untenable to attempt to impose democracy by force.

Never mind that in Chile's case there was absolutely no substantial indication that Allende was going to subvert the democratic process.

QuoteI think that if you held that referendum now, you might find a plurality that want the Americans to stay for at least a while.  

I think that tells us a lot about the fantasyland you live in.

QuoteThe 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.  

Certainly there might be minority groups or regions within Iraq that support the occupation out of fear of the alternative, and with a solid basis for that fear.  But that has more to do with a whole other kettle of fish: the reality that Iraq is probably unviable as a state and needs to be partitioned.  Certainly Kurdistan (which has been operating more or less autonomously since the time of the first gulf war) has no business being a part of the rest of Iraq, and a strong argument could be made for a continued U.S. presence there, based on (the very credible probability of) ongoing desire on the part of the Kurdish government and people for U.S. protection and support.

QuoteIt 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.

Only its been 5 years in Iraq now and things are just about as utterly fucked up as they've ever been there. No real progress has been made because there was never any real, substantial and intelligent plan for creating a viable state (or set of states) out of the ruins of a post-war Iraq; the whole plan for the start was for a long term occupation with a puppet government and selling off every last Iraqi resource to American corporations.

Neocons love the comparison to post-war Germany or Japan, but conveniently ignore the key differences in how rebuilding in those countries was actually designed to rebuild things, and the huge differences in how the U.S. invested in the creation of strong autonomous and democratic states in those countries.

RPGPundit

Quote from: John MorrowWhile they were certainly proxy wars, the current conflict in Iraq is also a proxy war of sorts against terrorists, Iran, and Syria.  

Please.  Before the US invasion, there was no significant Al Qaeda presence in Iraq, and Iran was probably the only country Hussein hated more than the U.S.

QuoteThe 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?

Again, though, those are only real possibilities, either of them, because of the US invasion in the first place.  So your basic argument here is: "we have to stay in Iraq for a hundred years because we fucked up so badly that if we leave now, Iraq will quickly join our enemies".  That's a sterling moral highground you've got going, there.

QuoteWhat are we exploiting that's worth the billions we are spending to remain there?  

Again, that's only by virtue of the fact that the current administration is so utterly incompetent that they can't even manage to succeed in their own crapulent motives.  The whole neocon plan was that "the oil will pay for the war". The fact that they failed to make it profitable doesn't annul the real motivations for it in the first place.

QuoteLet's see what Chavez does if he loses an election.  Do you think he'll quietly give up power?

He lost the referendum and ended up having to accept it (albeit reluctantly according to some sources).  The fact is that WHEN someone subverts democracy (as in the case of Mugabe), then you have a justification of some kind for foreign powers to intervene, though again it must depend on the will of the native population to overcome it.
But the idea that the United States should seek to subvert a standing democracy based on the possibility that the government in power might end up doing it anyways, or worse, that they will simply enact policies not to the United States' liking, is utterly unjustifiable.

QuoteUh, 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.  

It makes a pretty fucking huge difference in how you act after the war is over as an occupying power.
The fact is, the Iraqi people DID for the most part cheer the fall of Saddam; the notion that "the American troops will be welcomed as liberators" was not entirely illogical; its just that they forgot to subsequently act as liberators, and turned out to be just as brutal oppressors as Saddam ever was, while (amazingly) turning out to be more incompetent as governors than Saddam was.
The Iraqi people initially cheered the American conquest (at the very beginning) because they assumed that after the war, the United States would make a real effort to improve their lot, and things would get better for them both in terms of standard of living and personal freedoms than it was under Saddam. Instead, they lost their water and electricity and security, while the tortures and night-time arrests continued as before.

QuoteTrue, 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?

In both Chile and El Salvador's case, democracy was restored as a result of local popular will mixed with the incompetence of the governing regime making the ongoing state of the regime untenable. That, plus the fact that the US administration then in power no longer propped up the dictatorship.
To suggest that it was somehow the plan all along to restore democracy in those and other south american countries, when the US through Plan Condor systematically overthrew pretty well every democratic country and plunged the entire continent into a roughly decade-long dark age of dictatorships from coast to coast is just patently absurd revisionism.

QuoteEven 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.

The problem is that you propose no solution that would show an eventual restoration of truly independent democracy in Iraq apart from the apparent plan of "keep occupying the fuck out of them until the stupid bastards magically start to like us". That's not a solution.

You like to talk about the excluded middle: it seems to me that this is the whole deal with the Neocons: Having a withdrawl plan is admitting defeat so the only alternative MUST be to continue with things exactly as they are and plan to maintain a semi-permanent occupation there for an unlimited time. That's not an answer, that's the stupidity of bashing your head against the same wall over and over again.

RPGPundit

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.  

Remember that in the hearts of many American Conservatives, Iraq was seen as the opportunity to get a "do-over" on the humiliating "defeat" that they feel was Vietnam.  It was seen as their chance to "prove" something to all those dirty hippies who's "fault" it was that Vietnam was such a disaster and they ended up "losing" American society too: in their bizzare fantasies, if they could "win" Iraq, everyone would now agree that the hippies were wrong, and we'd get to all go back in time (With Dubya as a kind of Superman, reversing the rotation of the Earth) and suddenly all those nasty "changes" to american society would be undone.  To have to pull out of Iraq too is so unthinkable to them because that would mean that all their little conspiracy theories about why they lost in Vietnam are so much bullshit, and they'd now have TWO fuckups on their backs.

Remember, before the Iraq invasion, the standard US-Republican's fairytale about Vietnam was "if we'd just stayed a little longer we'd have been SURE to win". Its unsurprising that this is the basis of their entire strategy in this current war.

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.  

QuoteConversely, (2) I don't think you or other conservatives are arguing "every U.S. invasion was always justified and good".  

Oh, I think that many, MANY U.S. conservatives argue exactly that.

RPGPundit

Quote from: John MorrowActually, 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.  

Hey, look,  if the U.S. were to pull out its military forces from Iraq, and then proceed to give even say, half of the billions and billions its spending on the war effort to the Iraqi government in support (including for the Iraqi military), I would fucking cheer them. It really would be "mission accomplished" then.
Of course IF, and only IF, all that funding was absolutely conditional to the Iraqi government being Democratically elected, and not am American puppet regime Dictatorship of the sort Saddam Hussein's once was.

RPGPundit

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.

Awesome!

But wait a minute... the Jews get to be part of the ruling class, right? I mean, it was probably our conspiracy anyway!

Quote from: RPGPunditDude, 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?

This is what I mean by a "productive discussion", Morrow. One where you set aside your indignation that someone's criticised your country, and actually read what they say thoroughly enough to notice that they're talking about something else.

When people aren't listening to what the other person is saying, the discussion isn't productive.

And Morrow, when it comes to political affairs, you just don't listen to what other people are saying. Which is funny, since a person would expect that with a line-by-line refutation style of argument that nothing would be missed, but there you go.

Quote from: RPGPunditRemember that in the hearts of many American Conservatives, Iraq was seen as the opportunity to get a "do-over" on the humiliating "defeat" that they feel was Vietnam.

Hehe. Woops. What's that line about history repeating, the first time as tragedy and the second as farce?

Quote from: RPGPunditTo have to pull out of Iraq too is so unthinkable to them because that would mean that all their little conspiracy theories about why they lost in Vietnam are so much bullshit, and they'd now have TWO fuckups on their backs.

I first knew for sure that the West was defeated in Iraq when some retired US Generals started saying the government had fucked up. And you run across the occasional ex-Marine saying "we could win, but we had to fight with one hand tied behind our backs!" Same shit as every time a country's losing a war - the politicians blame the military, the military blames the politicians. When blame starts flying around you know they've lost.

Ten years from now when Iraq is like Lebanon 1986, Morrow will be saying it was our fault for doubting him :D

Quote from: Kyle AaronAwesome!

But wait a minute... the Jews get to be part of the ruling class, right? I mean, it was probably our conspiracy anyway!

Get with the program. The Jew is using the Black Man as muscle. Well, what you gonna do about it "Whitey"?!?!

Bill

Quote from: RPGPunditJesus Christ, so we have to destroy democracy in order to save it?! That's your argument?

Not destroy democracy.  More a matter of suspending it and restarting it later.  There is no perfect system of government guaranteed not to spin wildly out of control.  Representative democracies seem to be the best solution but there are certainly examples of them going terribly wrong.  I don't see democracy as an end but a means toward an end, and if people are democratically jumping off of a cliff, stopping them can be warranted.

Quote from: RPGPunditI mean shit, you really don't have a leg to stand on here, Morrow. The moment you overturn a democratic election, whatever you think might be your motives, whatever you've done has not been in support of democracy.

I don't believe that democracy is magically perfect, so I don't agree.  When I took my defensive driving course in high school, there was a part about where they talked about if an accident is unavoidable that it's preferable to hit an object that will give (a parked car) over an object that won't (a bolder), an object moving in the same direction you are (swerving into the car next to you traveling in the same direction) over an object moving in the opposite direction (a head-on collision) and so on.  

Similarly, if the failure of democracy to sustain itself is inevitable, it's better to put it into the hands of a person who actually loves their country and cares for the majority of the people, keep the country relatively prosperous, and might restore democracy down the road somewhere than to let it fall into hands of people like Fidel Castro, Robert Mugabe, Kim Jong Il, or the Khmer Rouge that are going to do even worse things to their opponents, run their country into the ground, and hold on to power until they die making the restoration of democracy highly unlikely.  

And please don't tell me that democracies don't ever crash and burn like that because they most certainly do.  Please don't tell me that certain political ideologies, once elected, don't have a long history of subverting and perverting democracy to stay in power because they do.  And please don't tell me that all dictators are equally bad for democracy because while some tenaciously hold on to power until it is pried from their cold dead fingers, others do in fact surrender power and restore democracy, thus for all of his flaws, Pinochet handed over power while for all of his flaws, Castro only did when his health failed and then chose his brother.  They are not all equal but you curiously seem more offended and upset by the dictators of countries who have actually be restored to democracy than by dictators who haven't.

Quote from: RPGPunditYou can't have democracy without the will of the people: in some theoretical country's case, if the majority of the people actually supported an anti-democratic movement, then I would argue that at that time its not only unethical to try to oppose their position but utterly untenable to attempt to impose democracy by force.

Yes, but in the case of Allende, he wasn't elected by the majority of the people.  He was elected with less than 40% of the vote, a fact you always conveniently ignore.  He won a plurality of the vote but was not backed by a majority of the people, which is why Pinochet was hardly the only opposition or coup that he faced.

Quote from: RPGPunditNever mind that in Chile's case there was absolutely no substantial indication that Allende was going to subvert the democratic process.

He already was subverting the rule of law, and you should know that.  No, Castro's month-long visit to Chile, his close ties with Cuba, his increasingly strong and illegal attempts to establish state control over private property and the economy, the soaring inflation and debt, his unconstitutional actions, he attempts to restrict free speech and disregard of the courts, and so on all meant nothing.  Perhaps he was simply an incompetent fool and the Soviets were disappointed by his unwillingness to use force to solidify power, but his actions followed a pattern that generally led to a loss of democracy in the past.  Allende certainly rattled enough cages in Chile that Pinochet was not the first to attempt to depose him and wouldn't have been the last.

Quote from: RPGPunditI think that tells us a lot about the fantasyland you live in.

No.  It simply means that I don't use Bill Maher and John Stewart as my primary sources of how things are going in Iraq, people with a vested interest in making sure that the US fails in Iraq.

Quote from: RPGPunditCertainly there might be minority groups or regions within Iraq that support the occupation out of fear of the alternative, and with a solid basis for that fear.  But that has more to do with a whole other kettle of fish: the reality that Iraq is probably unviable as a state and needs to be partitioned.  Certainly Kurdistan (which has been operating more or less autonomously since the time of the first gulf war) has no business being a part of the rest of Iraq, and a strong argument could be made for a continued U.S. presence there, based on (the very credible probability of) ongoing desire on the part of the Kurdish government and people for U.S. protection and support.

I think that a Kurdistan that incorporated not only Kurdish Iraq but Kurdish Iran and Kurdish Turkey is the proper solution but neither Turkey (a NATO ally) nor Iran are going to go along with that and the fear is that an independent Kurdistan would back insurgencies in Iran and Turkey creating regional instability.

Quote from: RPGPunditOnly its been 5 years in Iraq now and things are just about as utterly fucked up as they've ever been there. No real progress has been made because there was never any real, substantial and intelligent plan for creating a viable state (or set of states) out of the ruins of a post-war Iraq; the whole plan for the start was for a long term occupation with a puppet government and selling off every last Iraqi resource to American corporations.

I don't disagree that years were wasted mismanaging things in Iraq.  George W. Bush has a 20-something percent approval rating because even most conservatives don't approve of how he handled Iraq.  One of the biggest mistakes was to trust crooked exiles with an interest in taking control.  That said, I think there is recent evidence that real progress is being made and that things are starting to stabilize.  Fatalities are definitely down all around.   I think this is the wrong time to be cutting that off at the knees and providing encouragement to those who want to destabilize and destroy the country.

Quote from: RPGPunditNeocons love the comparison to post-war Germany or Japan, but conveniently ignore the key differences in how rebuilding in those countries was actually designed to rebuild things, and the huge differences in how the U.S. invested in the creation of strong autonomous and democratic states in those countries.

Yes, and part of the mistakes that the Bush Administration made was ignoring those differences and having too much faith in that analogy.  That does not, however, mean that there aren't similarities and if a nearly best-case scenario took 5 years to sort out, it's not unreasonable to think that Iraq may take several years long to sort out and that we shouldn't be looking at our watch like the impatient George H. W. Bush during his debate with Bill Clinton and Ross Perot.

Quote from: Kyle AaronAnd Morrow, when it comes to political affairs, you just don't listen to what other people are saying. Which is funny, since a person would expect that with a line-by-line refutation style of argument that nothing would be missed, but there you go.

Westerners doing business in Japan have often been misled by the Japanese saying "I understand" and the Westerners interpret that to mean "I agree".  There is this strange assumption in the West that to understand someone is to agree with them, leading to the idea that any crisis or dispute can be solved by getting everyone to sit around a table to understand each other because, of course, if they understand each other, they'll magically agree.  But as the Japanese can tell you, it's quite possible to hear what someone is saying and understand what they are saying and to not agree with what they are saying.

And there are other cases where I really don't understand what someone is saying because I don't share the same assumptions or simply don't understand the point they are making.  And just as people here readily assume that I approve of everything the Bush Administration does and that America does despite the fact that I've often acknowledged mistakes and disagreements because the preponderance of what I write is in defense of the United States and conservative policies, you'll have to excuse me if I overlook the occasional jab that RPGPundit and others make at France when the preponderance of their finger pointing and blame seems to be directed solely at the United States.

Quote from: Kyle AaronTen years from now when Iraq is like Lebanon 1986, Morrow will be saying it was our fault for doubting him :D

And if ten years from now Iraq isn't like Lebanon in 1986, what's your stance going to be?

Quote from: RPGPunditHey, look,  if the U.S. were to pull out its military forces from Iraq, and then proceed to give even say, half of the billions and billions its spending on the war effort to the Iraqi government in support (including for the Iraqi military), I would fucking cheer them. It really would be "mission accomplished" then.
Of course IF, and only IF, all that funding was absolutely conditional to the Iraqi government being Democratically elected, and not am American puppet regime Dictatorship of the sort Saddam Hussein's once was.

I would be very happy with that outcome but I think it will take a few more years before Iraq is stabilized enough for the United States to withdraw and for their to be a reasonable chance that the Iraqi government could remain democratically elected.  The United States is not the only player in the region with designs on putting a puppet in control of Iraq.

Quote from: RPGPunditPlease.  Before the US invasion, there was no significant Al Qaeda presence in Iraq, and Iran was probably the only country Hussein hated more than the U.S.

Then why did over 100 Iraqi planes fly to Iran during the 1991 Gulf War?

Quote from: RPGPunditAgain, though, those are only real possibilities, either of them, because of the US invasion in the first place.  So your basic argument here is: "we have to stay in Iraq for a hundred years because we fucked up so badly that if we leave now, Iraq will quickly join our enemies".  That's a sterling moral highground you've got going, there.

Yes, my point is that we messed up Iraq so it's our responsibility to fix it.  You break it, you fix it.  And the problem is not that Iraq will join our enemies but that Iraq will become a puppet of other regional powers at the expense of many Iraqis.  You have a problem with the Americans installing a puppet government and abusing Iraq but not others.  That's a sterling moral highground that you've got going there, too.

Quote from: RPGPunditAgain, that's only by virtue of the fact that the current administration is so utterly incompetent that they can't even manage to succeed in their own crapulent motives.  The whole neocon plan was that "the oil will pay for the war". The fact that they failed to make it profitable doesn't annul the real motivations for it in the first place.

Or maybe that was never their motive and they actually believe that Saddam had WMDs because, well, he certainly acted like he did and everyone else seemed to believe he did.  And what was Tony Blair's profit supposed to be in all of this?  Why did he go along with it?

Quote from: RPGPunditHe lost the referendum and ended up having to accept it (albeit reluctantly according to some sources).

He lost a referendum but he hasn't yet been kicked out of office.  The real test is how he behaves when he's actually kicked out of power or forced to leave for legal reasons.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe fact is that WHEN someone subverts democracy (as in the case of Mugabe), then you have a justification of some kind for foreign powers to intervene, though again it must depend on the will of the native population to overcome it.

Democracy was already subverted in Iraq unless you believe people willingly gave Saddam 100% of the vote.  In fact, he represented an ethnic minority that used brutality and terror, including the use of poison case and ecological destruction, to subjugate his opposition in the majority.  And several of those minorities including the Kurds did welcome US intervention.  Attempts at a softer hand that continued for over a decade in the form of "no-fly zones" failed to bring about any real change in rules.  Yeah, maybe the Bush Administration was being foolishly idealistic about being welcomed in to Iraq but the idea of sanctions and no-fly zones bringing about a regime change have proven equally foolishly idealistic in Iraq and elsewhere.

Quote from: RPGPunditBut the idea that the United States should seek to subvert a standing democracy based on the possibility that the government in power might end up doing it anyways, or worse, that they will simply enact policies not to the United States' liking, is utterly unjustifiable.

At this point in time, I agree with you.  During the Cold War, when waiting until things get bad to intervene could lead to a full-blown proxy war between the US and Soviet Union or China, I don't think it was so clear.

Quote from: RPGPunditIt makes a pretty fucking huge difference in how you act after the war is over as an occupying power. [...]

The United States made a lot of mistakes throughout the occupation of the war and I can add a few that you missed.  I don't disagree with that.  The way to fix those mistakes is not to pack up our bags, pat them on the back, and go.  The mistakes are finally being corrected and progress is being made.

Quote from: RPGPunditIn both Chile and El Salvador's case, democracy was restored as a result of local popular will mixed with the incompetence of the governing regime making the ongoing state of the regime untenable. That, plus the fact that the US administration then in power no longer propped up the dictatorship.

While I don't think your characterization is entirely accurate, the key question is why did the US stop propping up the dictatorships and why did that lead to democracy rather than increasingly desperate attempts to keep power, which is the other way those things can go?

Quote from: RPGPunditTo suggest that it was somehow the plan all along to restore democracy in those and other south american countries, when the US through Plan Condor systematically overthrew pretty well every democratic country and plunged the entire continent into a roughly decade-long dark age of dictatorships from coast to coast is just patently absurd revisionism.

It's interesting that you blame the US alone for Condor as if the leaders of various Latin American nations didn't play the primary role in organizing it and carrying it out.  What democratic country did Condor overthrow and who was responsible?

Quote from: RPGPunditThe problem is that you propose no solution that would show an eventual restoration of truly independent democracy in Iraq apart from the apparent plan of "keep occupying the fuck out of them until the stupid bastards magically start to like us". That's not a solution.

The plan is to restore order and the rule of law and make the Iraqis feel safe.  That involves not only running around killing the bad guys (what they were originally doing) but sticking around to make sure they don't return and the people are safe.  That's actually working, contrary to your assertion that nothing is getting better and I think it should be allowed to work until things are more stable.

Quote from: RPGPunditYou like to talk about the excluded middle: it seems to me that this is the whole deal with the Neocons: Having a withdrawl plan is admitting defeat so the only alternative MUST be to continue with things exactly as they are and plan to maintain a semi-permanent occupation there for an unlimited time. That's not an answer, that's the stupidity of bashing your head against the same wall over and over again.

Similarly, the left only wants to see Iraq in terms of defeat and seem Hell-bent on making sure it's a defeat, just like they did with Vietnam.  Why else would people be so eager to call it a failure and leave?  Because to have any success in Iraq would mean that it was the anti-war left who was wrong.  So please don't tell me that only the dreaded neo-cons have a vested political interest in how this turns out.

Quote from: Kyle AaronBut wait a minute... the Jews get to be part of the ruling class, right? I mean, it was probably our conspiracy anyway!

You haven't taken a close look at Obama's foreign policy advisors or why Joe Lieberman is backing McCain, have you?

(Yes, I realize that it's perfectly understandable for an Australian to not know every nuance of the American Presidential election.)

Quote from: John MorrowYes, my point is that we messed up Iraq so it's our responsibility to fix it.  You break it, you fix it.  And the problem is not that Iraq will join our enemies but that Iraq will become a puppet of other regional powers at the expense of many Iraqis.  You have a problem with the Americans installing a puppet government and abusing Iraq but not others.  That's a sterling moral highground that you've got going there, too.

So you're saying "its ok to do it because Iran does"? Well, I guess that explains the support for torture and such...
To me, the difference lies in that I expect more from the U.S., I expect the U.S. to do better than Syria or Iran.

QuoteAnd what was Tony Blair's profit supposed to be in all of this?  Why did he go along with it?

Blair wanted to be a relevant big-time mover and shaker in the world diplomatic scene, that was always what got his rocks off. He believed that if he stuck unequivocably in support of Bush, he would get to be the prestigious and respectable "middleman", negotiating between the U.S. and the rest of Europe, and people would think him deeply significant by virtue of being the "elder statesman" able to influence Bush's government and temper some of the American Neocon's excesses.
When it became blatantly obvious to everyone that Blair was nothing of the sort, that Dubya didn't give a fuck what Tony thought, and would not be influenced by anyone, it was already far too late for Blair to take any other direction. He thought he'd have leverage, and didn't realize that he'd been made into a tool and a token until it was too late (and would have been political suicide for him personally to change direction; so like a good coward he chose to quite possibly destroy his party for a generation rather than accept that he'd made the wrong call and "take one for the team").

QuoteHe lost a referendum but he hasn't yet been kicked out of office.  The real test is how he behaves when he's actually kicked out of power or forced to leave for legal reasons.

Sure. Until then Venezuela is still a democracy. Are you advocating the overthrow of its government too now?

QuoteDemocracy was already subverted in Iraq unless you believe people willingly gave Saddam 100% of the vote.  In fact, he represented an ethnic minority that used brutality and terror, including the use of poison case and ecological destruction, to subjugate his opposition in the majority.  And several of those minorities including the Kurds did welcome US intervention.  Attempts at a softer hand that continued for over a decade in the form of "no-fly zones" failed to bring about any real change in rules.  Yeah, maybe the Bush Administration was being foolishly idealistic about being welcomed in to Iraq but the idea of sanctions and no-fly zones bringing about a regime change have proven equally foolishly idealistic in Iraq and elsewhere.

Sure. The right way to have fixed this would have been to provide funding and assistance to Iraqi anti-Saddam resistance movements after Gulf War I; but the U.S. government chose to let them all be slaughtered by Saddam instead, because they felt that it was the best for them to maintain the status quo at that time. Another bad call.

You want to know what WAS a really good example of U.S. intervention? Afghanistan.  After 9-11, the U.S. provided aid and support to the embattled Northern Alliance army that had been fighting a war (until then, losing badly) against the Taliban.  With that support, the Northern Alliance swept in and basically decimated the Taliban, having effectively won the war before the  foreign troops even arrived en masse. There was nothing at all wrong with that.  Unfortunately, things have been getting progressively worse in Afghanistan too now, mostly because the U.S. ended up getting totally sidelined by Iraq, instead of fighting the enemies who were actually responsible for 9-11 and a real international menace.

QuoteWhile I don't think your characterization is entirely accurate, the key question is why did the US stop propping up the dictatorships and why did that lead to democracy rather than increasingly desperate attempts to keep power, which is the other way those things can go?

I would think the key question is why did they support those dictators for a decade or more before then?

QuoteIt's interesting that you blame the US alone for Condor as if the leaders of various Latin American nations didn't play the primary role in organizing it and carrying it out.

Of course there were factions in latinamerican states who took advantage of the opportunities to grab power offered by Condor.

QuoteSimilarly, the left only wants to see Iraq in terms of defeat and seem Hell-bent on making sure it's a defeat, just like they did with Vietnam.  Why else would people be so eager to call it a failure and leave?  

Maybe because it has been a miserable failure?

QuoteSo please don't tell me that only the dreaded neo-cons have a vested political interest in how this turns out.

I think, more accurately, there are a number of guilty college liberals who think that everything the U.S. ever does is wrong; and a few superannuated hippies who are reliving vietnam just as much as the conservatives are trying to "avenge" it.

RPGPundit

Quote from: John MorrowYou haven't taken a close look at Obama's foreign policy advisors or why Joe Lieberman is backing McCain, have you?

Apart from the fact that a solid democratic victory would render Lieberman utterly irrelevant and destroy his whole "i'm a quasi-republican" gimmick?

RPGPundit

Quote from: John MorrowWesterners doing business in Japan have often been misled by the Japanese saying "I understand" and the Westerners interpret that to mean "I agree".

Don't give us this bullshit, Morrow.

Someone wrote something, and you ignored it, because you're not interested in a discussion, you don't respond to what people say, you've just got this and that you want to say, there's stuff you're indignant about, and you want to talk about that - other people's words are just boards to jump off into your own pool of words. Get a blog.

Quote from: John MorrowAnd if ten years from now Iraq isn't like Lebanon in 1986, what's your stance going to be?

My stance will be one of surprise, and thanking God.

But we'll see. Before the invasion I predicted there'd be no WMD, lies of government would be exposed but not lose them government, Iraq would be a mess for years, where I messed up is that I expected involvement of neighbours - Kurds and Turks and Iranians. Instead it's more about the various factions. So it's worse for the Iraqis than I thought it'd be, but better for their neighbours since they've had the good sense to stay out of it. The conflict's deeper rather than broader than I expected.

My predictions have been not bad, better than those of self-described "conservatives". So I'm inclined to think my predictions will be better than yours in the future, too. But we'll see.

If Iraq turns out in ten years to be a paragon of democracy and peace in the world, I'll be joyous. But I ain't gonna hold my breath.

Quote from: RPGPunditSo you're saying "its ok to do it because Iran does"?

No.  My point is that if your concern is about puppet governments, a US withdrawal won't prevent it.  In other words, you seem more concerned about America taking advantage of the situation than about what actually happens to the Iraqi people.

Quote from: RPGPunditWell, I guess that explains the support for torture and such...

I don't support real torture, though I do have mixed feelings about things like water-boarding.  No, I don't think it's the same thing as rape, cutting of fingers, hands, and limbs, breaking bones, electrocution, and other physical punishment that leaves lasting physical and psychological damage.  The US military was willing to water-board it's own people to train them to resist questioning, which I think puts it on a different level than what the North Vietnamese did to John McCain and others, which they'd never do as training exercises.  That said, I do think McCain has a more credibility on the issue than just about anyone in the US government and would support him implementing a much less permissive definition of torture.

Quote from: RPGPunditTo me, the difference lies in that I expect more from the U.S., I expect the U.S. to do better than Syria or Iran.

And I think that's a big part of the problem because while I agree that the higher expectations are warranted, the net effect is to let the Syrias and Irans of the world off the hook while all of the criticism is directed at the United States and the West.  They know that they can do anything that they want and nobody will complain because everyone expects it.

To put this another way, I might expect more from a luxury apartment complex than from a low-rent housing project, but if you want to improve the lives of people, does it make sense to spend more time worrying about and complaining bout a few ants in the luxury apartment when the low-rent housing project is infested with cockroaches and ants?

If it was America killing the people in Darfur, it would be the top story in the news.  The people are just as dead regardless of who kills them.  Nobody cared about the people Saddam tortured, mutilated, and killed in Abu Ghraib (I can point you to a movie if you want, which could never be shown on the nightly news) but treated the mistreatment of prisoners, which the US Military was already dealing with punishing and new was wrong, as a major scandal.  

What that tells me is that people care more about holding America to a high standard than they actually care about the plight of various people around.  Their plight only matters to people when Americans or the West are the cause of it.  And the message that sends to despots around the world is that they can murder, torture, and rape with reckless abandon and nobody is going to complain because people are too busy worrying about much less significant things that the US does.

Consider the torture complaints.  Yes, the US water-boarded prisoners.  Now compare that to what the North Vietnamese did to John McCain and other American prisoners.  The net effect is not unlike the Marie Antoinette "Then let them eat cake" comment.  No perspective, and that undermines the moral credibility of the outrage.

It's like when one hears the members of one political party complaining about the corruption in an opposing political party while excusing and defending the corruption in their own party.  It makes it look like partisan opportunism rather than genuine moral outrage, and suggests that the people involved don't really care about corruption and all they care about is tearing down their opponents.

Quote from: RPGPunditBlair wanted to be a relevant big-time mover and shaker in the world diplomatic scene, that was always what got his rocks off.

I don't think your analysis fits his actions or rhetoric.  

That's the problem with conspiracy theories.  They force you to throw Occam's Razor out of the window in order to make everything fit and, like the Bush Administration selectively reading the Iraqi intelligence to support their belief that Iraq had WDM, force a selective reading of the evidence to support the conspiracy theory.

Quote from: RPGPunditSure. Until then Venezuela is still a democracy. Are you advocating the overthrow of its government too now?

No, I agree with you.  The US should not interfere so long as the government remains under reasonable democratic control (meaning that I don't think minor voting fraud warrants action but major election fraud such as what's being seen in Zimbabwe might).  

Quote from: RPGPunditSure. The right way to have fixed this would have been to provide funding and assistance to Iraqi anti-Saddam resistance movements after Gulf War I; but the U.S. government chose to let them all be slaughtered by Saddam instead, because they felt that it was the best for them to maintain the status quo at that time. Another bad call.

You make it sound as if this were a unilateral US decision and ignore that the first Gulf War involved UN mandates, a coalition that included neighboring nations, and so on.  Bush, Sr. did exactly what war critics call for.  He got UN authorization, built a coalition, and then stopped once his mandate was accomplished, without exceeding it.  And let's not forget that even talking about encouraging regime change has always had its critics.

The further problem is that there was no organized anti-Saddam resistance movement in Iraq that had any realistic chance of overthrowing, just as they are having trouble forming a unified governing coalition today.  And given the disparity of arms, the only want to help them win was to turn the whole country into a no-fly zone and, following the Afghanistan model, providing active air support and bombings of military targets.   Bill Clinton even calling for regime change as an official US policy was considered controversial at the time.  Can you imagine what the criticism would have been like if they were actively funding and arming insurgents like, uh, the Contras?

Quote from: RPGPunditYou want to know what WAS a really good example of U.S. intervention? Afghanistan.  After 9-11, the U.S. provided aid and support to the embattled Northern Alliance army that had been fighting a war (until then, losing badly) against the Taliban.  With that support, the Northern Alliance swept in and basically decimated the Taliban, having effectively won the war before the  foreign troops even arrived en masse. There was nothing at all wrong with that.  Unfortunately, things have been getting progressively worse in Afghanistan too now, mostly because the U.S. ended up getting totally sidelined by Iraq, instead of fighting the enemies who were actually responsible for 9-11 and a real international menace.

The US acted like an Air Force for the Northern Alliance, performing bombing missions and air support for them.  They also had a unified anti-Taliban alliance that they could deal with and work with.  But from what I understand, even that was abused at times, with Northern Alliance leaders calling in air strikes against political opponents at times rather than Taliban forces.  And let's not forget that the Taliban military was just a pale shadow of the Iraqi military, which while no match for the US Military, would be more than a match for an insurgent army attacking not through mountains but across open desert.

Quote from: RPGPunditI would think the key question is why did they support those dictators for a decade or more before then?

Because in the decade or more before that, there was another superpower in the world actively supporting insurgents and political opponents that would have been worse.  

Again, it's not as if we don't have real live examples of what happened when the Soviet-backed forces took over, either via insurgency or elections.  Asia, Africa, Latin America, and even Europe are littered with examples of how they ruled in practice and the sorts of body counts that they produced.  

Did Pinochet and other right-wing Latin American dictators torture and kill their political opponents?  Yes, and that's awful.  But it's less awful when you look at the alternative that left-wing dictators generally tortured and killed their opponents with reckless abandon.  While I can match your Pinochet's with Castros that were just as bad, you'd be hard-pressed to find a US backed Pol Pot or Kim Jong Il.  That the Soviets and Chinese were (and are) willing to back such leaders illustrates that the US was more choosy in the dictators that it backed than it could have been, though I think it was often less choosy as it should have been, especially in Asia and Africa.

Quote from: RPGPunditOf course there were factions in latinamerican states who took advantage of the opportunities to grab power offered by Condor.

You are making it sound as if they were passive participants and opportunists rather than the active organizers and players.  Based on what I've read, I don't think that was the case.  Do you have a mainstream source of information supporting your analysis of Condor?

Quote from: RPGPunditMaybe because it has been a miserable failure?

It's gone badly in the past because it was mismanaged.  It's going better now because it's not.  Now that things are getting better, why give up when things are looking up?

Quote from: Kyle AaronSomeone wrote something, and you ignored it, because you're not interested in a discussion, you don't respond to what people say, you've just got this and that you want to say, there's stuff you're indignant about, and you want to talk about that - other people's words are just boards to jump off into your own pool of words. Get a blog.

You are the pot calling the kettle black, and what makes it really ironic is that you are complaining about it in defense of Mr. Rhetoric himself, who frequently does exactly what you are accusing me of.

Do you understand what an "ad hominem argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)" is, Kyle?  It's all you seem to know how to do sometimes.

Quote from: Kyle AaronMy predictions have been not bad, better than those of self-described "conservatives". So I'm inclined to think my predictions will be better than yours in the future, too. But we'll see.

Fair enough.  I didn't expect Bush to be so incompetent but I guess I should have seen the warning signs when he pushed Colin Powell to the outskirts of his administration.  I still fail to see how withdrawal is going to make things better for Iraq.

Quote from: RPGPunditApart from the fact that a solid democratic victory would render Lieberman utterly irrelevant and destroy his whole "i'm a quasi-republican" gimmick?

Here, try this (http://www.usnews.com/blogs/erbe/2008/05/28/obama-and-brzezinski--ill-suited-and-sending-a-mixed-message-to-jews.html) or this (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/22/us/politics/22jewish.html).

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

Hey, where do you get off quoting my mother?

!i!

Quote from: John MorrowYou are the pot calling the kettle black, and what makes it really ironic is that you are complaining about it in defense of Mr. Rhetoric himself, who frequently does exactly what you are accusing me of.

I'm not defending anyone. I'm attacking you.

Quote from: John MorrowDo you understand what an "ad hominem argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)" is, Kyle?  It's all you seem to know how to do sometimes.

Not at all. And this isn't an ad hominem argument. An ad hominem argument would be, "Morrow is a poopyhead, therefore everything he says is wrong." My argument is, "Morrow has some things he wants to talk about, and will talk about them, and not respond directly to what you say, so it's senseless trying to have a discussion with him."

I'm not arguing from the character of Morrow, but from the relevance of his comments.

Your comments could be entirely correct, or entirely wrong, but the important thing here is that they're often not a response to what others are actually saying. You don't respond to people directly and to the point, but respond to some imagined Frankenstein's creature of different people tacked together. When you begin a political discussion, you stop talking to David or Kyle or John, and start talking to A Liberal Foreign Critic.

A few actually relevant comments and responses slip through, but the general tendency is to respond to imagined arguments so that you can talk about what interests you most, rather than the actual subject of the discussion. That's why in responding to people you'll often refute things they never said.

Quote from: David RWho the hell says free elections is the only way to decide a nation's fate. There's revolution. Blood will be spilt and it should be their own. They want freedom, they fight for it.

Actually, in the case of Vietnam in the 50s-60s, the communists were the most nationalistic of the forces in the country. They were the ones who wanted a Vietnam independent of foreign (Chinese, French, American whoever) influence. The regimes in the South were seen by most Vietnamese as patsies for foreign powers.

This is something that conservative Americans have a great deal of difficulty understanding; that most people in other countries prefer homegrown authoritarian regimes to corrupt regimes propped up by foreigners. There's no doubt in my mind that Americans in the heartland would prefer a junta of military officers from Tennessee and Ohio to a bunch of shady businessmen in the payroll of the Chinese or French government, who invite foreign armies in to defend their regime.

Quote from: John MorrowYes, but in the case of Allende, he wasn't elected by the majority of the people.  He was elected with less than 40% of the vote, a fact you always conveniently ignore.  He won a plurality of the vote but was not backed by a majority of the people, which is why Pinochet was hardly the only opposition or coup that he faced.

The current prime minister of Canada was elected with less than 40% of the vote. That happens a lot in multi-party democracies.

QuoteThe regimes in the South were seen by most Vietnamese as patsies for foreign powers.

That's because they were.  We invented South Vietnam.  That's why we lost.  The people WANTED to be communist.  They wanted Ho Chih Minh.  They wanted their own guy in charge of their own people.  But the US saw red, and set about inventing support where none was actually present by creating South Vietnam, and then playing it off as if the evil commies were trying to take over democracy.

Was the resulting Vietnamese government when they finally drove us off and reunited the country all sunshine and roses?  No.  Is it, even now?  No.  But it's theirs. And there'd probably be a hell of a lot fewer graves in that part of the world if we'd let them run their own thing instead of meddling.

Quote from: John MorrowWhat that tells me is that people care more about holding America to a high standard than they actually care about the plight of various people around.  Their plight only matters to people when Americans or the West are the cause of it.  And the message that sends to despots around the world is that they can murder, torture, and rape with reckless abandon and nobody is going to complain because people are too busy worrying about much less significant things that the US does.

Despots don't care about public opinion. That's why there isn't much use in pointing to Mugabe or the Burmese Junta and denouncing their torture.

Democracies do care about public opinion, so there is a point in denouncing democracies for torture.

This highlights one of the fundamental differences in conservative/liberal (or traditional/rational) worldviews. Traditionalists believe it's very important to proclaim your own values - saying what you think is right and what you think is not right. Rationalists believe that demonstrable cause and effect are more important than proclaiming values.

So the traditionalist is outraged that the U.S. comes under more fire for humans rights abuses than Zimbabwe, while the rationalist sees this is perfectly understandable, given the efficacy of criticizing the U.S. versus the efficacy of criticizing Robert Mugabe.

Quote from: Kyle AaronI'm not defending anyone. I'm attacking you.

Yes, for the content of a discussion I'm having with someone else who uses similar tactics.  As usual, the selectivity of your criticism suggests that you don't really care about what you are complaining about but are simply looking for something to complain about in the form of my argument rather that the substance.

Quote from: Kyle AaronNot at all. And this isn't an ad hominem argument. An ad hominem argument would be, "Morrow is a poopyhead, therefore everything he says is wrong." My argument is, "Morrow has some things he wants to talk about, and will talk about them, and not respond directly to what you say, so it's senseless trying to have a discussion with him."

No, that is simply a very crude example of an ad hominem attack.  As the link I provided you (and you characteristically apparently failed to bother reading) explains: "An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: 'argument to the man', 'argument against the man') consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim."  In other words, you complain in reply after reply about how I reply (point by point quotes), what I don't acknowledge (RPGPundit's mention of the French in Vietnam), argue that I don't listen, attempt to explain the psychology behind my replies, tell people to ignore me, and so on but you rarely address the actual substance of the argument that I'm making or really explain why it's irrelevant.  In the few cases that you have argued substance, you seem to lack the willingness or stamina to deal with more than a round or two of critiques of your claims.  

Quote from: Kyle AaronI'm not arguing from the character of Morrow, but from the relevance of his comments.

You wrote, "Someone wrote something, and you ignored it, because you're not interested in a discussion, you don't respond to what people say, you've just got this and that you want to say, there's stuff you're indignant about, and you want to talk about that - other people's words are just boards to jump off into your own pool of words. Get a blog."  Yeah, Kyle, that's commenting on my character.  At least be a man and own up to it.

Quote from: Kyle AaronYour comments could be entirely correct, or entirely wrong, but the important thing here is that they're often not a response to what others are actually saying. You don't respond to people directly and to the point, but respond to some imagined Frankenstein's creature of different people tacked together. When you begin a political discussion, you stop talking to David or Kyle or John, and start talking to A Liberal Foreign Critic.

Look at all of my replies.  I respond to reasonable points reasonably, including yours.  In fact, you can find examples in this thread, courtesy of the point-by-point replies, where I reply to absurd claims in one tone and reasonable claims in a different tone.  When both you and RPGPundit get specific in your criticisms, you'll notice there are even times when I will agree with you or him and have in this tread.  So if you don't want me to talk to you like a standard left-wing Kool-Aid drinker, don't say silly things like one (which RPGPundit often does and you do from time to time).  And if you notice, you do the same thing.  When you think I'm talking like a standard right-wing Kool-Aid drinker, you talk to me like one, and there are times that I certainly deserve it.

Quote from: Kyle AaronA few actually relevant comments and responses slip through, but the general tendency is to respond to imagined arguments so that you can talk about what interests you most, rather than the actual subject of the discussion. That's why in responding to people you'll often refute things they never said.

Sometimes, that's because I'm reading more into a comment than is there.  Sometimes it's because I don't understand what someone is saying or miss a point.  It happens.  And sometimes the problem is that people are simply being so vague that, yes, I make some assumptions about why a person is saying what they are saying.  So if I'm missing the point, the simple solution is to say that I'm missing the point and to explain what the point is.

Quote from: HaffrungThis is something that conservative Americans have a great deal of difficulty understanding; that most people in other countries prefer homegrown authoritarian regimes to corrupt regimes propped up by foreigners.

It's not simply that the people in a country prefer homegrown authoritarian regimes to regimes propped up by foreigners, corrupt or not (which, while it may be foolish in many cases, is psychologically understandable) but that foreign observers also tend to prefer and excuse abusive and murderous homegrown authoritarian regimes yet excessively criticize foreign involvement or foreign supported regimes regardless of how relatively benign that they are.  

I can understand why Iraqis might resent the American military's presence in and control of Iraq.  What I can understand is why Europeans and left-wing Americans who are not Iraqis and should have a more objective perspective seem to nevertheless support the homegrown authoritarian despot over the foreign interloper, no matter how murderous and malicious they are to their people, to the point of excusing their abuses and rooting for their victory.  I can understand why an Iraqi might root for Saddam Hussein, why a Vietnamese might root for Ho Chi Minh, why a Cuban might root for Fidel Castro, why a North Korean might root for Kim Jong Il, why an Iranian might root for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, why a Venezuelan might root for Hugo Chavez, and so on.  What I can't understand is why an American or European would excuse their abuses, root for them, want them to remain in power, and so on.

As Michael Walzer suggested in his post 9/11 Dissent Magazine article Can There Be a Decent Left? (http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=598) about the inappropriate reaction of many leftists to the 9/11 attacks and initial response:

   Ideology: We certainly need something better than the rag-tag Marxism with which so much of the left operates today-a Marxism whose chief effect is to turn world politics into a cheap melodrama, with all the villains dressed to look the part and one villain larger than life. A tough materialist analysis would be fine, so long as it is sophisticated enough to acknowledge that material interests don't exhaust the possibilities of human motivation. The spectacle of European leftists straining to find some economic reason for the Kosovo War (oil in the Balkans? a possible pipeline? was NATO reaching for control of the Black Sea?) was entertaining at the time, but it doesn't bear repeating. For the moment we can make do with a little humility, an openness to heterodox ideas, a sharp eye for the real world, and a readiness to attend to moral as well as materialist arguments. This last point is especially important. The encounter with Islamic radicalism, and with other versions of politicized religion, should help us understand that high among our interests are our values: secular enlightenment, human rights, and democratic government. Left politics starts with the defense of these three.

...and...

   Blaming America first: Not everything that goes badly in the world goes badly because of us. The United States is not omnipotent, and its leaders should not be taken as co-conspirators in every human disaster. The left has little difficulty understanding the need for distributive justice with regard to resources, but we have been practically clueless about the just distribution of praise and blame. To take the obvious example: in the second half of the twentieth century, the United States fought both just and unjust wars, undertook both just and unjust interventions. It would be a useful exercise to work through the lists and test our capacity to make distinctions-to recognize, say, that the United States was wrong in Guatemala in 1954 and right in Kosovo in 1999. Why can't we accept an ambivalent relation to American power, acknowledging that it has had good and bad effects in the world? But shouldn't an internationalist left demand a more egalitarian distribution of power? Well, yes, in principle; but any actual redistribution will have to be judged by the quality of the states that would be empowered by it. Faced with states like, say, Saddam Hussein's Iraq, I don't think we have to support a global redistribution of political power.

...and...

   Not blaming anyone else: The world (and this includes the third world) is too full of hatred, cruelty, and corruption for any left, even the American left, to suspend its judgment about what's going on. It's not the case that because we are privileged we should turn inward and focus our criticism only on ourselves. In fact, inwardness is one of our privileges; it is often a form of political self-indulgence. Yes, we are entitled to blame the others whenever they are blameworthy; in fact, it is only when we do that, when we denounce, say, the authoritarianism of third world governments, that we will find our true comrades-the local opponents of the maximal leaders and military juntas, who are often waiting for our recognition and support. If we value democracy, we have to be prepared to defend it, at home, of course, but not only there.

Quote from: HaffrungThe current prime minister of Canada was elected with less than 40% of the vote. That happens a lot in multi-party democracies.

Yes, and once you have rulers who are elected with substantially less than 50% of the vote, it becomes very difficult to talk about them in terms of "the will of the people" or about how their policies reflect "the majority of the people" and it's why many people who analyze voting schemes advocate either run-off elections between the top-two candidates when none gets over 50% or some other scheme to create some sort of mandate.

Quote from: J ArcaneWas the resulting Vietnamese government when they finally drove us off and reunited the country all sunshine and roses?  No.  Is it, even now?  No.  But it's theirs. And there'd probably be a hell of a lot fewer graves in that part of the world if we'd let them run their own thing instead of meddling.

I don't think we can assume that because, as with North Korea, there is no reason why Vietnam shouldn't be more open than it is now.  And while I think it might be fair to blame some of the carnage that occurred in the South when the North took over to the antipathy caused by years of war, I think it's absurd to deny that communist governments were (and still are) invariably totalitarian governments with a poor track record when it comes to democracy, liberty, free speech, human rights, and not slaughtering (accidentally or purposely) large numbers of their own population.  The government of Vietnam has not disappointed in that regard.

Quote from: HaffrungDespots don't care about public opinion. That's why there isn't much use in pointing to Mugabe or the Burmese Junta and denouncing their torture.

Then find something that they do care about and work with that.  Talk is cheap, which is why it's so popular.

Quote from: HaffrungDemocracies do care about public opinion, so there is a point in denouncing democracies for torture.

The message?  If you want to get away with murder, be a despot and nobody will do anything to stop you.  In fact, if you join the UN, you can expect a certain amount of protection on the basis of sovereignty and might even get to sit on a human rights commission.

This is like all of the artists and media outlets who allow artwork blasphemous to Christians or Jews but censor art blasphemous to Islam because of the dangers involved.  The message?  If you murder people who blaspheme your religion, they'll respect you and stop doing it.  If you simply complain and protest, they'll keep doing it.  Want to stop people from blaspheming your religion?  Start murdering the blasphemers.

Are these really the messages we want to be sending?

Quote from: HaffrungThis highlights one of the fundamental differences in conservative/liberal (or traditional/rational) worldviews. Traditionalists believe it's very important to proclaim your own values - saying what you think is right and what you think is not right. Rationalists believe that demonstrable cause and effect are more important than proclaiming values.

Then why do they get cause and effect so horribly wrong?  See above.

Quote from: HaffrungSo the traditionalist is outraged that the U.S. comes under more fire for humans rights abuses than Zimbabwe, while the rationalist sees this is perfectly understandable, given the efficacy of criticizing the U.S. versus the efficacy of criticizing Robert Mugabe.

So the message is that if George W. Bush were more like Robert Mugabe, then he'd hear less criticism, have less opposition, and could remain in power longer.  And while George W. Bush may never turn into a Robert Mugabe, do you really think that this logic is lost on people like Vladimir Putin or Hugo Chavez or, well, Robert Mugabe?  And if the criticism is all that you have to offer (all bark and not bite), is it any wonder that George W. Bush and his administration simply ignores their critics?

What you are calling "rationalist" doesn't sound very rational to me.  It sounds like a pretty fundamental lack of understanding of how incentives and disincentives work and seems to assume that people are irrational.

Yeah, c'mon on all you big strong men,
Uncle Sam needs your help again!
He's got himself in a terrible jam
way down yonder in Vietnam.
So put down your books, and pick up a gun,
We're gonna have a whole lot of fun!

And it's 1, 2, 3, what're we fighting for?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn;
next stop is Vietnam!
And it's 5, 6, 7, open up the pearly gates;
well there ain't no time to wonder why,
whoopee! we're all gonna die!

Well c'mon generals, let's move fast,
your big chance has come at last.
Gotta go out and get those Reds,
the only good Commie is one who's dead.
And you know that peace can only be won
when we've blown 'em all to kingdom come!

And it's 1, 2, 3, what're we fighting for?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn;
next stop is Vietnam!
And it's 5, 6, 7, open up the pearly gates;
well there ain't no time to wonder why,
whoopee! we're all gonna die!

Well c'mon on Wall Street,
don't be slow,
why this is war a-go-go!
There's plenty good money to be made
by supplyin' the Army with the tools of the trade.
Just hope and pray that if we drop the bomb
they drop it on-the Vietcong!

And it's 1, 2, 3, what're we fighting for?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn;
next stop is Vietnam!
And it's 5, 6, 7, open up the pearly gates;
well there ain't no time to wonder why,
whoopee! we're all gonna die!

Well c'mon mothers throughout this land,
pack your boys off to Vietnam.
C'mon pops, don't hesitate
send 'em off before it's too late.
Be the first one on your block to have your boy come home in a box!

And it's 1, 2, 3, what're we fighting for?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn;
next stop is Vietnam!
And it's 5, 6, 7, open up the pearly gates;
well there ain't no time to wonder why,
whoopee! we're all gonna die!

Quote from: HinterWeltGet with the program. The Jew is using the Black Man as muscle. Well, what you gonna do about it "Whitey"?!?!

Bill

Ha ha. Awesome!

Illinois Nazis.

I hate Illinois Nazis.

:haw:

Quote from: John MorrowYes, and once you have rulers who are elected with substantially less than 50% of the vote, it becomes very difficult to talk about them in terms of "the will of the people" or about how their policies reflect "the majority of the people" and it's why many people who analyze voting schemes advocate either run-off elections between the top-two candidates when none gets over 50% or some other scheme to create some sort of mandate.

I agree that instant run-off voting is a good idea to come closer to a mandate.  

You're speaking only about rulers with less than 50% of the votes cast, however, and I don't think the problem is limited to that.  For example, Iran has elections but the candidates must be approved by religious authority, so the people's choice are quite restricted.  Other party systems can also restrict people's choice, such that many who vote only consider them the lesser of evils.  Many countries only present limited options, and many people do not vote at all.  The last parliamentary elections in Switzerland, for example, had under 40% turnout.

A true mandate is rare, in my opinion.  Even if a party is elected with a true majority of the population, that doesn't mean their subsequent actions necessarily reflect the will of the people -- nor should it necessarily, under the original philosophy of republics.

Quote from: jhkimI agree that instant run-off voting is a good idea to come closer to a mandate.

It at least helps make sure that everyone's third or fourth choice doesn't wind up in charge.  For example, the reason why Ortega won in Nicaragua was that the right was split pretty evenly between two candidates, which gave Ortega the opportunity to win a plurality of votes from everyone else.  

Weighted voting is another option, but probably too complicated to be practical.

Quote from: jhkimYou're speaking only about rulers with less than 50% of the votes cast, however, and I don't think the problem is limited to that.  For example, Iran has elections but the candidates must be approved by religious authority, so the people's choice are quite restricted.  Other party systems can also restrict people's choice, such that many who vote only consider them the lesser of evils.  Many countries only present limited options, and many people do not vote at all.  The last parliamentary elections in Switzerland, for example, had under 40% turnout.

Of those concerns, I'm more concerned with limited choices, which the two-party system in the United States also creates to a degree, and the whole idea of the two parties bartering for "safe" congressional districts so that congressional elections won't be competitive is pretty obscene.  

I'm less concerned with low voter turnout because that suggests indifference to who wins.  I don't want to force people into a voting booth that are going to pull a random lever because they have to, though an "I don't care" button might mitigate that concern.

Quote from: jhkimA true mandate is rare, in my opinion.  Even if a party is elected with a true majority of the population, that doesn't mean their subsequent actions necessarily reflect the will of the people -- nor should it necessarily, under the original philosophy of republics.

Agreed.  But I think that once you start getting into the 40% range, the person does not have a mandate for the sorts of major changes that Allende was attempting to implement in Chile when he was deposed.  From what I understand, Allende got legislative support in exchange for a pledge that he'd act constitutionally and there were complaints that he was not.

Quote from: John MorrowOf those concerns, I'm more concerned with limited choices, which the two-party system in the United States also creates to a degree, and the whole idea of the two parties bartering for "safe" congressional districts so that congressional elections won't be competitive is pretty obscene.  

I'm less concerned with low voter turnout because that suggests indifference to who wins.  I don't want to force people into a voting booth that are going to pull a random lever because they have to, though an "I don't care" button might mitigate that concern.

Well, it's possible that those people simply wouldn't care regardless of what the system was.  It's also possible that people feel either that none of the choices offered are what they really want -- or perhaps that that their vote doesn't make a difference due to the two-party system, the bartering of districts, and/or the electoral college.

Quote from: jhkimWell, it's possible that those people simply wouldn't care regardless of what the system was.  It's also possible that people feel either that none of the choices offered are what they really want -- or perhaps that that their vote doesn't make a difference due to the two-party system, the bartering of districts, and/or the electoral college.

Yes, but dealing with that problem by legally mandating voting sweeps both groups into the voting booth.