Topic: The Disaster Of Iraq - Enough Is Enough! (Read 12648 times)

Demosthenes · « **on:** May 11, 2004, 11:51:48 AM »

I'm searching for a link to the original, but in the mean time here is the text of this editorial that I saw posted on a different forum.

I don't know much about the writer's politics, but I have to agree with him on this topic. The Iraq war has been an ill-conceived, poorly planned debacle of backpedalling and slipshod, reactive PR by the White House since a year before it began, and I hate to say "I told you so" to supporters of this war, but "I told you so".

And as much of a naysayer as I was from the outset on this subject, the reality of the situation is even worse than my pessimism was allowing me to think it would be a year ago.

Quote

An editorial by the Bishop of Newark, John Spong

The Disaster of Iraq - Enough is Enough![/size]

I have reached the point when I can no longer tolerate the Iraqi War. The final straw was the abuse of Iraqis in the prison camp at Abu Ghraib and the deceptive way it was handled by both the Bush Administration and the military leadership.

I had questions as the build-up to this war developed and articulated them in this column. The assurance by my government that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological, chemical and nuclear, was not shared even then by Hans Blix and the United Nations inspectors. If United States intelligence was so sure of the existence of these weapons, why could they not direct the inspection teams to the hidden sites? That seemed an obvious question. The answer that it would destroy our ability to gather intelligence by revealing our sources was never convincing. This administration dealt with this skepticism by attacking the competency of Mr. Blix and the United Nations.

Then the President, still seeking to build his case, announced in the State of the Union speech that Saddam had received material needed to build atomic weapons from Nigeria. That turned out not to be true and the President had been notified of this fact by the Central Intelligence Agency prior to that speech.

Next the members of the Security Council of the United Nations, unconvinced by the rhetoric of the Bush Administration, refused to back the second resolution designed to give moral authority to what they perceived as a unilateral American military adventure. Mr. Bush, in response, withdrew his request to the United Nations, claiming that the first resolution gave him all the authority he needed. After all he was leading what he began to call not a U.N. Coalition but "a coalition of the willing." I watched in embarrassment as Secretary Colin Powell lost much of his credibility in a United Nations speech in which he "demonstrated" that Iraq was hiding frightful weapons and that the only choice the United States had was to invade Iraq and remove this threat to world peace. This Administration wanted this war badly for reasons it was simply unwilling to state. The war was mercifully brief and casualties minimal except among the Iraqi civilian population. Praise for the military planning was extravagant. With a significantly smaller force than the generals thought necessary, the civilian leaders from the Department of Defense carried the day. This victory was to be a great political moment. Mr. Bush in full military regalia landed on an aircraft carrier to announce that the mission had been accomplished. The passage of time has revealed that either he was not telling the truth or that he was significantly uninformed. Neither option is a comforting thought.

We have now learned that the Iraqi army simply removed their uniforms and faded into the civilian population, hiding their weapons to use another day. That fact was apparently not obvious to our military and political establishment, who gloried in a great military victory that was destined to evaporate shortly.

With complete access to the Iraqi countryside, there was nothing now to hinder the search for those hidden weapons. So eager was this Administration to vindicate itself that excessive claims were made for discoveries that turned out to be nothing, including the mobile vehicles to which Secretary Powell had referred in his United Nations speech. The Administration kept assuring the world that it was only a matter of time. But time passed and they were never found. Mr. Bush revealed his insensitivity to the gravity of this situation by showing at the National Press Club a video of himself searching under his desk for those weapons. Relatives of those who were still dying in that war were not amused. If this nation and its people were misinformed, then the leaders of our intelligence gathering agencies should have been held accountable and removed from office. But no one was fired. This has made the worst-case scenario seem infinitely more plausible. The American people were lied to and both the Administration and the intelligence agencies appear to be part of the deception.

Finally Saddam Hussein was captured. No doubt he was a brutal dictator and the world is better off without him. But his removal was not the primary purpose for which we were told this war was necessary. Revisionist history, however, was quickly in play and Saddam became the symbol of our "victory." We had been told that "the Iraqi people will welcome us as liberators and a democratic Iraq will positively impact the Palestinian/Israeli conflict." How hope does spring eternal if one believes one's own propaganda! A true democracy in Iraq would result in an Islamic Republic, which the Bush Administration announced was not acceptable. This means democracy was not our goal. Control is.

Slowly but surely the atmosphere became uglier and uglier. The provisional American government headed by Paul Bremer was totally unprepared for the task they faced. We discover now that this provisional government is actually guarded not by the military but by the hired gunmen of the American business establishment working in Iraq. This Administration obviously had no plan for Iraq after the war and no exit strategy. The excuse offered was that much of the infrastructure of the country had been destroyed or allowed to deteriorate by Saddam Hussein. The remarkable thing was that this fact appeared to come as a surprise to the Administration. Surely our intelligence service should have known this. Another surprise was that the hand picked ruling council chosen to lead the nation toward democracy had no credibility with the Iraqi people. How out of touch with reality can an Administration be?

The war obviously did not stop on May 1, 2003 as Mr. Bush announced, it rather grew in intensity. First the battle was engaged through sabotage and guerilla activity. Then it evolved into an organized insurrection led at least in part by disillusioned Shiite religious leaders. Casualties mounted. The death toll since the "Mission Accomplished" speech by Mr. Bush is now far greater than that endured during the war he thought was over. The fighting was so intense in Fallujah recently that the most amazing and even incredible act of the entire war occurred. Marines, who had won their positions with enormous loss of life in the siege of Fallujah, were ordered to fall back and one of Saddam's former Baathist generals was appointed to lead the military campaign against this city. It could hardly get more absurd than this, but it did. Less than forty-eight hours later this general was removed because his Saddam era activities made the resistance to him by the Iraqi people intense. If everyone else in Iraq knew this, one wonders why our leaders did not seem to know. I suspect that this Administration was so desperate to stop the political fallout that went with mounting casualties that they leaped upon this strange and ill-informed solution with little more thought than that which has marked every other part of this war. Such chaotic decision-making enhanced concern in Iraq and in the United States that this Administration does not know what it is doing.

Mr. Bush, facing his growing problems, appealed once more to the United Nations for both troops and money to rebuild Iraq. Since he had listened to none of the world's concerns prior to the war and had generally insulted potential allies during the war, they have not been eager to rescue him from his present disaster.

A CNN/Gallup Poll revealed that over seventy per cent of the Iraqi people see the United States today as occupiers, not as liberators. The Spanish troops are being withdrawn. The Australians have already gone. The negativity against the war rises daily throughout the world. The interim Iraqi government to which authority is to be given on June 30th has not yet been formed. With that politically sensitive date fast approaching and the presidential campaign in America building in intensity, Mr. Bush in yet another head spinning about face has turned this transition over to a United Nations representative, Lakhdar Brahimi, who had been helpful in Afghanistan. Yet this man has such minimal public relations skills that immediately after his appointment, he made inflammatory comments about the Jews rendering his usefulness problematic.

Meanwhile the Jewish-Palestinian conflict that was to have been helped by the war in Iraq shows no sign of lessening. Instead Ariel Sharon announced his unilateral decision not to remove Israeli settlements from the West Bank, offering parts of the Gaza Strip instead. This decision completely obliterated the well-publicized Bush "Road Map" for Middle East peace and when Mr. Bush endorsed Mr. Sharon's position, it caused dismay among the moderate Islamic nations. Our two closest allies in the Middle East, King Abdullah of Jordan canceled a planned White House visit with the President in protest, and President Mubarak of Egypt issued a statement calling America "the most hated nation in the world among the Arab people." Then just to put icing on the cake of this disintegrating tragedy Prime Minister Sharon's own Likud Party rejected his planned pull-out from parts of Gaza by a sixty-forty vote. Sharon, like his mentor in Washington, had failed to consult his own political base sufficiently and he did not have their support.

Could it get any worse? Well it did. Next came the revelation of the grotesque abuse of Iraqi prisoners occurring at one of Saddam's former torture chambers, but this time carried out by American military and intelligence personnel. The first response of Administration officials was to complain that CBS showed the pictures. The second response was to blame a few low level bad apples in the military. The third response was to condemn this action with high sounding rhetoric. The evidence, however, points to systemic abuse over a long period of time. Both the military Chief of Staff and Mr. Rumsfeld have not only pled ignorance, but have admitted that they have not even yet read the full report. That report indicates that this violence was noted in January and a full report was issued in March. "It takes time for it to work up the chain of command," is a pitiful excuse. Congress was never informed, not even by a Pentagon briefing that occurred in the morning of the day that CBS broke the story in its "60 Minutes II" presentation.

A culture of abuse, that may have begun in Guantanamo, seems to have entered our military. The accused reservists did not act alone, as we shall inevitably discover, but with the approval and at least the tacit consent of their superiors. For me the deception in this dreadful episode is the final straw in a pattern of deception.

Iraq 2003-2004 has been an unmitigated disaster for my country. Those who perpetrated it have sacrificed, I believe, their right to govern. I do not think they can now rebuild the friendship, trust and respect necessary to stabilize the Middle East. New leadership is required for that task. No more Americans should be asked to die for this ill planned adventure. I am grateful that we have young men and women willing to serve in the military. It is a noble vocation. I do not believe, however, that it is ever proper to ask anyone to die for the incompetence of politicians who have demonstrated their inability to plan, to lead or to be honest. Enough is enough.

-- John Shelby Spong

bobo · « **Reply #1 on:** May 11, 2004, 02:02:33 PM »

First let me say I am in the armed forces. I make that statement so my comments can be taken into prospective.

We need to get the fuck out of Iraq. Most of the world and most of people living in Iraq don't want us there.I hear that from all my friends doing time over there. Fine, here is Bobo's plan. We pull out, I mean out of Iraq, Kuwait, Pakistan,Korea, everywhere we have troops. Put them all to work on homeland defense. We also cut off all that aid we are giving to all the developed countries we are supporting. We use all that money,food to help...I don't the US? Trade is cool, we can leave trade open but that's it. Get all of the people here fed, clothed and educated to at least some degree. We kick the damn UN out of New York, do like Robin Williams said and turn the building into a homeless shelter or something. We tell the world that if a single American or American interest is attacked in anyway then it's any act of war. Which we will respond accordingly. Basically a don't screw with us and we won't screw with you policy. As far as OPEC, forget those guys we open the national reserves we have here for about two years and see how they like it.

OK, I am done.

this concludes our broadcast day.

Anonymous · « **Reply #2 on:** May 11, 2004, 02:16:58 PM »

Quote from: bobo

Basically a don't screw with us and we won't screw with you policy.

There's no such thing. People will screw with you and you will screw with them. That's human nature. The only way we wouldn't screw with each other if is each country had theiir own planet and no one could reach anyone else. And still they'd probablly figure out a way to screw each other.

I don't think bumping into everyone's business and getting results trought force is the best option, but sheltering oneself and ignoring the rest of the world is no better.

bobo · « **Reply #3 on:** May 11, 2004, 02:25:56 PM »

Quote from: TheJudge

There's no such thing. People will screw with you and you will screw with them. That's human nature. The only way we wouldn't screw with each other if is each country had their own planet and no one could reach anyone else. And still they'd probably figure out a way to screw each other.

I don't think bumping into everyone's business and getting results trought force is the best option, but sheltering oneself and ignoring the rest of the world is no better.

True, but it does seem to be what the rest of the world wants is for us to leave everybody else alone. so I say we give them what they want even for a short while. I still like the idea even if it is not very realistic. Either way a huge change is needed in the way we conduct our selves as a country with regards to the rest of the world.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #4 on:** May 11, 2004, 02:32:58 PM »

Hence my approach to the world stage.

Everybody is pissed off at the US for "not giving a shit" when we don't butt our noses into other countries' business.

Everybody is pissed off at the US when we do interfere.

If we're going to piss everyone off anyway, the better option between the two is #1. If we're damned if we do and damned if we don't, then we're best off with the "don't" option.

It's also cheaper in terms of

A) Damaged diplomatic ties with other countries
B) Monetary expenses
C) Lives (both ours and theirs)

It's possible to "leave well enough alone" without being totally blinded by isolationism.

In fact, it's pretty simple. All we have to do is refrain from invading other countries without cause and stop supporting countries and organizations that do.

Hell, we'd be better off economically by leaps and bounds if we did that, and we wouldn't even be compromising our sovereignty or security.

In fact, we'd be more sovereign and secure than ever. "Not making enemies in the first place" is worlds better than the "kill one and two more pop up" scenario we're facing now, and on into the forseeable future.

Anonymous · « **Reply #5 on:** May 11, 2004, 02:39:12 PM »

Why can there only be two options?

Law · « **Reply #6 on:** May 11, 2004, 02:44:24 PM »

Interesting article. Quite a few factual errors, but good points over all.

As for the bobo plan, we're to be isolationists unless someone pisses us off and then we attack them? Interesting. And where are you going to find jobs for the hundreds of thousands of military men and women you put out of a job when they come home and we have no need of them?

bobo · « **Reply #7 on:** May 11, 2004, 02:48:57 PM »

Demo, you said what I was trying to say. You said it so much better than I did...

and Judge..why can't there only be two answers?

for the returning military, we put them to work securing our borders, defending our costline. Inspecting all those cargo containers that come into the country that nobody looks at. Of course we would still have to have a gradual draw down in troop strength. You would offer people bonous for getting out. Extend the educational benifits so of they want they can get a four year degree. This would be cheaper than keep our military at it's current size. You could also intergrate the returning troops back into many of the state side bases. Many of my friends were working in shops that were only 60 to 75 persent manned before 9/11

Demosthenes · « **Reply #8 on:** May 11, 2004, 03:10:09 PM »

Quote from: Law

And where are you going to find jobs for the hundreds of thousands of military men and women you put out of a job when they come home and we have no need of them?

If that's the least of our worries, I think we can probably deal with that.

And Judge, either we're interfering in the affairs of other nations, or we are not.

More often than not, if those nations are civilized, there isn't a problem. Take the relationship between the US and Canada, for example. Or the US and the UK, or for that matter, any nation in the EU. Or Australia. Or Japan.

I have no problem with being involved diplomatically and even economically with other countries... everyone benefits from such relationships.

The kinds of "involvements" I DO have a problem with, however, are the ones where we station troops there (it is not the role of the US military to defend the borders of others), the ones where we engage in "nation building", and "regime changes", and other types of meddling that -- no matter how strongly it's asked for -- inevitably ends up with us being reviled and looking like selfish pricks.

As for the selfish part, I say "what else do you expect?" No nation should be expected to act in a manner counter to its own interests. To expect otherwise is at best naive, and in practice it's foolishness at its finest.

Which should be a very clear, harsh lesson to anyone insisting we get involved in their affairs. If we do get involved, our interests come first. If you don't like that, then don't ask for our involvement. Deal.

But what it comes down to is what should our role be where other countries (particularly developing countries and countries with less-than-stellar safeguards where human rights are concerned) come into play?

And the answer to that is simple: either we interfere with the direction and functioning of these countries, or we do not.

"Not" is by far the better way to go, in my opinion.

If they are a demonstrable, direct threat to us, then we deal with them appropriately, using diplomatic solutions wherever possible, and military solutions when diplomatic ones fail.

But that's it.

Anonymous · « **Reply #9 on:** May 11, 2004, 06:12:41 PM »

Quote from: bobo

and Judge..why can't there only be two answers?

Because the world isn't black and white. Now I don't know what the answer is but I'm sure there's an option C that would work better than option A or B. There's a downside to everything and Demo is right. Let's pick the lesser of the two evils. And again what is evil for one can be good for another. All I'm saying is let's also recognise that there's more than likely a bunch goods or evils, which ever way you want to look at it. There's not just two.

Law · « **Reply #10 on:** May 11, 2004, 08:02:59 PM »

Quote from: Demosthenes

More often than not, if those nations are civilized, there isn't a problem...

*my head a splode*

Demosthenes · « **Reply #11 on:** May 12, 2004, 09:22:16 AM »

When's the last time American bodies were dragged through the streets of London? Or Brussels? Or Hamburg? Or Sydney? Or Tokyo?

Note that at this time, I'm not considering our involvement with Israel to be involvement with a "civilized nation".

Anything but.

Law · « **Reply #12 on:** May 12, 2004, 10:08:49 AM »

I don't think you'd want to start the dialogue about how "civilized" Americans are. Obviosuly right now the Iraqi would defeat your argument in a heartbeat, but the Japanese, Koreans, Germans. etc. could easily defeat any contest of how "civilized" we are.

That, and when you reduce your argument to how much more "civilized" you are over another country (especially based on the actions of individuals), you've lost.

Anonymous · « **Reply #13 on:** May 12, 2004, 10:40:15 AM »

Heck you could start a debate on what civilized means. Look at the definition of this term and other related terms and it is purely subjective/relative.

Look at this for example: (from webster)

Main Entry: civilized
Function: adjective
: characteristic of a state of civilization <civilized society>; especially : characterized by taste, refinement, or restraint <a civilized way to spend the evening>

(things in bold above are 100% subjective)

Main Entry: civ·i·li·za·tion
Pronunciation: "si-v&-l&-'zA-sh&n
Function: noun
1 a : a relatively high level of cultural and technological development; specifically : the stage of cultural development at which writing and the keeping of written records is attained b : the culture characteristic of a particular time or place
2 : the process of becoming civilized
3 a : refinement of thought, manners, or taste b : a situation of urban comfort

So from 1a of civilization, all countries named here are civilizations. But are they civilized? From the civilized definition, they have to be when you look at them individually. But when you compare all civilisations, then it becomes relative. We would all be viewed as uncivilised if we were to compare ourselves with highly advanced alien civilization. Or maybe not. Who sets the benchmark? Who determines if the culture and way of life is better between two civilizations? Because in the end, you're always going to end up with civilization A reffering to civilization B as uncivilized while B will view A as uncivilied.

Those are all meaningless terms. The majority will always proclaim that their way of life is better than others because its a mold. That's how you were brought up. It's culture. It's values. And because the majority only know one way of life, they can't really pronounce themselves on the matter because frankly, they don't know. It's opinions based on ignorance. People compare the actions of others based on their personal culture. It's no wonder there's so much conflit.

What the US is essentially doing is imposing their own culture on others because they feel it's the better way of life. But they don't know that for sure. No one does. They just beleive it blindly just like fate and religion. Then they take actions based on thoses beleifs. Which is how the rest of the world works. I'm not saying the US is right or wring, or worse than others. The difference is that the US has the firepower and cash to back up their actions so they are certainly more often in the spotlight.

Now suppose that the economical situation between the US and Canada was reversed. And Canada had the means to back up their actions. We'll then we would become the black sheeps of the world. We would be the ones interfering with everyone else, trying to impose our culture on others because we feel our way of life is superior. And if Bin Ladden had the funds and firepower of the US, we would all be enslaved or destroyed because he thinks that how the world should work. It never ends.

The solution is education. For everyone. We need to value diversity instead of fearing it. We need to embrace differences instead of creating social molds. That is option C. Of course, it's easier said than done. But I'm convinced that if all the countires of this world had invested money into getting this message accross instead of arming themselves and defning boudaries, the world would be much different today.

hackess · « **Reply #14 on:** May 12, 2004, 10:42:06 AM »

Quote from: TheJudge

Who sets the benchmark? Who determines if the culture and way of life is better between two civilizations?

The same way history is written; by the winner, by those who are in power.

Anonymous · « **Reply #15 on:** May 12, 2004, 10:49:58 AM »

Quote from: catwritr

Quote from: TheJudge

Who sets the benchmark? Who determines if the culture and way of life is better between two civilizations?

The same way history is written; by the winner, by those who are in power.

Exactly. And it pisses everyone else off.

On the other hand, it's part of the natural evolution. That's how we got here today right?

My concern is that now, technology is a critical factor because we have the ability to pretty much blow up this rock. It's not just swords and catapults. So I don't like the idea of pissing people off as much. I don't like the concept that those who are in power win. That doesn't work anymore because of technology. But I supose if we end up blowing ourselves up, that would also become natural evolution.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #16 on:** May 12, 2004, 10:56:30 AM »

Quote from: Law

I don't think you'd want to start the dialogue about how "civilized" Americans are. Obviosuly right now the Iraqi would defeat your argument in a heartbeat, but the Japanese, Koreans, Germans. etc. could easily defeat any contest of how "civilized" we are.

That, and when you reduce your argument to how much more "civilized" you are over another country (especially based on the actions of individuals), you've lost.

I'm not arguing how civilized WE are. I was making a point about countries that we INTERFERE with tending to be on the lower end of that scale in terms of social and political stability.

But let's get back on topic for a sec. What exactly is your position then?

Are you saying we SHOULD be interfering with the affairs of developing countries? Because if that's your stance, I'm surprised by it.

I think until we stop that kind of crap, we as a country CANNOT be "civilized" in even a general sense of the word. We're moving further and further away from a mature, free society, and moving closer and closer to an authoritarian, jingoistic police state that insists on forcing everyone else to toe the line. And that's totally our own fault for being so embroiled in various theatres around the globe that inevitably result in our creation of an entire culture of enemies that are willing to die in the process of harming anyone even FROM here.

A "civilized" nation does not engage in those kinds of practices, so I am saying that we need to stop. Now.

And that's precisely my point.

I'm not saying we're more "civilized" than anyone else.

A civilized country does not spy on its own citizens. A civilized country does not place the welfare of the State above the rights of individuals. A civilized country does not put people to death for crimes. A civilized country does not invade other countries without clear, justifiable cause.

We should not be screwing around with the inner workings of developing countries that are already politically and socially unstable.

My position is that we should not be having a military presence of any kind outside of the US unless directly threatened. PARTICULARLY in unstable countries.

And it is also my position that we should stop behaving in an uncivilized fashion towards our own citizens and the citizens of other countries who are being mistreated in places like Guantanamo Bay and who knows what other locations?

Law, I should think that you know my politics well enough by now to know that I am not an "America: Love it or leave it!" flag waver who thinks that everyone should welcome our culture and ham-handed policies with open arms.

Law · « **Reply #17 on:** May 12, 2004, 12:26:05 PM »

Our positions are very similar in regards to how America should play with its global neighbors. I, however, believe that an organization like the United Nations is critical to this relationship. I know how you feel about the UN, but there simply must be a universal body that stands as a centrist observer and facilitator between nations.

The United States created the UN and then has ignored the reasoning behind it for the last 50+ years. We spend all our time stomping on any cross-border intervention around the globe unless we sponsor it. We veto UN actions for no reason other than we don't want to pay for it (and we don't, nor are we usually asked to) and then whine when the UN won't support us in our interventionist grudge matches. We hold ourselves as a model of prosperity and a beacon of democracy and development but bend over backwards to make sure we don't have to foot the bill to help anyone meet the goals we have set for them.

We will gladly make war on another nation for the most insignificant reasons, but will balk at the idea of using our people to help promote peace. We whine to the UN that we can't join a peacekeeping mission because we never allow our troops to come under foreign command, but we stock Europe full of US troops under foreign NATO commanders. Then we turn around and accuse the UN of being useless because they never have enough forces to man peacekeeping missions. Or we simply veto the mission out of existence and use it as another example of how the UN never acts when its necessary.

Do I think the US should intervene in developing countries? Yes. For regime change? Never.

Should we stop nation building? No. We are the only country that can afford to lend the material and financial support to struggling nations right now. The problem is, unless we can get something out of it, we're not interested. The UN and host of NGOs could get the job done, but we won't help them, and they're simply incapable of doing it on their own. Does that mean it shouldn't get done? Why? What gives the US the right to hold out a supposedly prospering economy and refuse to assist those in need? How do we expect to be a moral guide to nations if all we do laud our greatness over them.

You mentioned in another thread that the US should get out of the UN because it is predominantly anti-US. Do you honestly not understand how it came to be that way? Half-assed economic and humanitarian support, cowboy diplomacy, regime change based on personal grudges and economic sanctions against anyone who even slightly pisses us off and you wonder why we're hated?

We have the “best” standing military in the world and in many cases the most mobile. Yet, you would refuse to help a country being destroyed by civil war unless it was a direct threat or benefit to us? What is the threshold for intervention? We were willing to fight a civil war in Korea and Vietnam, but not Somalia. We’re fighting a civil war now in Iraq (we’re just in the way of these militias going after each other), yet have refused for years to assist any African nation with peacekeeping. Aside from the tired argument of oil, what is the decision maker?

According to your definition I am naïve for thinking that the strongest need help the weakest, but it’s simply ignorant to chock it up to naiveté and move on. I know I’m in a minority in hoping that morality for the sake of morality means something, but oh well, call me an idealist. I would like to believe that we can eliminate this selfish streak we have developed in the last few years. I do not think that drawing in ourselves is the way to get there though.

Anyways, my point was on your sue of “civilized.” Based on your definition, there are no civilized nations on earth, so again it has no place as a point of argument.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #18 on:** May 12, 2004, 01:24:04 PM »

Quote from: Law

Our positions are very similar in regards to how America should play with its global neighbors. I, however, believe that an organization like the United Nations is critical to this relationship. I know how you feel about the UN, but there simply must be a universal body that stands as a centrist observer and facilitator between nations.

Unfortunately, such an organization never has existed, and currently nothing even comes close.

Quote

The United States created the UN and then has ignored the reasoning behind it for the last 50+ years. We spend all our time stomping on any cross-border intervention around the globe unless we sponsor it.

I agree... that I have a problem with.

Quote

We veto UN actions for no reason other than we don't want to pay for it (and we don't, nor are we usually asked to) and then whine when the UN won't support us in our interventionist grudge matches.

I agree... that, I also have a problem with.

Quote

We hold ourselves as a model of prosperity and a beacon of democracy and development but bend over backwards to make sure we don't have to foot the bill to help anyone meet the goals we have set for them.

There is a point on which we differ. We should not be responsible for paying for anyone else's problems, period.

To me, that is simply nothing other than heavy-handed redistribution of wealth, and that helps nobody, and breeds resentment among those from whom it is taken, in this case, the American taxpayer.

If you want to help fund these kinds of things, you're more than welcome to contribute voluntary amounts of money and property towards that. Heck, if it's something I find worthwhile and not a mess of bureaucratic trainwrecks, I'll even help.

But nobody, and I mean NOBODY should hold a figurative gun to any taxpayer's head and redistribute their private property to anyone else by force. And that's what this is tantamount to.

That's utilitarianism, which leads only to tyranny. I will never, EVER support the initiation of force or coercion on individuals, least of all by the State, or by any other entity.

Quote

We will gladly make war on another nation for the most insignificant reasons, but will balk at the idea of using our people to help promote peace. We whine to the UN that we can't join a peacekeeping mission because we never allow our troops to come under foreign command, but we stock Europe full of US troops under foreign NATO commanders. Then we turn around and accuse the UN of being useless because they never have enough forces to man peacekeeping missions. Or we simply veto the mission out of existence and use it as another example of how the UN never acts when its necessary.

That I disagree with, but a little further up the stem... I don't think we should be involved in NATO militarily either. The only legitimate role of United States armed forces are in defense of the United States, its borders, and its people.

All US troops stationed on foreign soil should be recalled, and participation in "international peacekeeping" should not be permitted unless EQUAL numbers of international forces are used, i.e., we should never have more forces in any theatre than any other single nation. And even that's pushing it in my opinion, but I'm willing to compromise on that point because of necessity.

Quote

Do I think the US should intervene in developing countries? Yes. For regime change? Never.

Only if asked, in no uncertain terms.

Our recent involvement in Haiti, for example, was asked for by three sides in that conflict, the outgoing regime (Aristide), the rebels, and the citizens themselves. I don't have a problem with that.

Our involvement in Somalia was totally uncalled-for, however. As was our involvement in Gulf War I, Afghanistan in the 80's, Vietnam in the 60's and 70's.

I'm on the fence about Bosnia.

I am in 100% agreement with you on the subject of regime changes.

Quote

Should we stop nation building? No.

We should NEVER get involved in "nation building". It's disastrous in nearly every case, and leads to nothing but resentment. Offering voluntary aid is one thing. "Nation building" is another.

Quote

We are the only country that can afford to lend the material and financial support to struggling nations right now. The problem is, unless we can get something out of it, we're not interested.

Nor should we be. We shouldn't be expected to pay for what amounts to as hundreds of billions of dollars worth of involvement in developing countries and cause our own economy to come to a grinding halt and not get anything out of it.

That's patently ridiculous. And again, that smacks of nothing but "redistribution of wealth", and I will NEVER support that.

Quote

The UN and host of NGOs could get the job done, but we won't help them, and they're simply incapable of doing it on their own. Does that mean it shouldn't get done? Why? What gives the US the right to hold out a supposedly prospering economy and refuse to assist those in need? How do we expect to be a moral guide to nations if all we do laud our greatness over them.

I have no problems with aid, as I mentioned, as long as it's voluntary.

Forcing every taxpaying citizen here to give up a third of their income every year to pay for these boondoggles, however (and domestic boondoggles fall into this category as well) is a violation of individual rights, and I will never support that.

It is immoral to use force to take from one group and give to another, no matter what the level of need is.

Wronging one group to help another is not a legitimate cause. The ends do not justify the means.

Quote

You mentioned in another thread that the US should get out of the UN because it is predominantly anti-US. Do you honestly not understand how it came to be that way? Half-assed economic and humanitarian support, cowboy diplomacy, regime change based on personal grudges and economic sanctions against anyone who even slightly pisses us off and you wonder why we're hated?

I don't wonder why we're hated; you hit the nail on the head.

However much I disagree with our behavior in the UN, however, I can ALSO understand what led to some of it. Which is why instead of bending over backwards and letting the rest of the world screw us via the UN like you apparently are wanting, I say we withdraw from it entirely and let them deal with it.

Read "Atlas Shrugged" some time if you haven't already. If everybody is so mad at "the big evil wealthy ones", then maybe they'd just be better off without them altogether.

Quote

We have the “best” standing military in the world and in many cases the most mobile. Yet, you would refuse to help a country being destroyed by civil war unless it was a direct threat or benefit to us? What is the threshold for intervention?

Like I said, implicit invitation for intervention from all sides, for one. And even then, I think we really need to choose our battles.

And NEVER use conscription to back up those choices. That is so vulgar and disgusting as to defy description. Any "free" nation that feels the need to rely on a draft in order to defend itself doesn't deserve to survive whatever conflict led to such circumstances.

Quote

We were willing to fight a civil war in Korea and Vietnam, but not Somalia.

I don't think we should have been involved in any of the three.

Quote

We’re fighting a civil war now in Iraq (we’re just in the way of these militias going after each other), yet have refused for years to assist any African nation with peacekeeping. Aside from the tired argument of oil, what is the decision maker?

According to your definition I am naïve for thinking that the strongest need help the weakest, but it’s simply ignorant to chock it up to naiveté and move on. I know I’m in a minority in hoping that morality for the sake of morality means something, but oh well, call me an idealist. I would like to believe that we can eliminate this selfish streak we have developed in the last few years. I do not think that drawing in ourselves is the way to get there though.

Anyways, my point was on your sue of “civilized.” Based on your definition, there are no civilized nations on earth, so again it has no place as a point of argument.

Well that's where you can call me an idealist.

I would like to believe that we can eliminate "might makes right" as the only acknowledged form of government on Earth.

There is no nation on Earth that I can call "civilized", because none meet that standard.

In stupid, foolish optimism, I have hopes that some day there will be, but probably not in my lifetime, the way things look.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #19 on:** May 12, 2004, 02:03:44 PM »

I think we both want the same thing, Law, I really do.

The difference is in our respective philosophies regarding how to accomplish it.

You evidently believe it is morally justifiable to violate the rights of individuals in order to serve "a greater good".

I do not.

And on that particular note, I don't think we will ever agree.

Anonymous · « **Reply #20 on:** May 12, 2004, 02:05:29 PM »

Unless you both want to agree on not agreeing.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #21 on:** May 12, 2004, 02:07:49 PM »

Well, there's always the chance one of us will be made to see the other side of the issue at hand... I know Law can be pretty persuasive, and he's nothing if not articulate and well-read and (to me, at least) very reasonable in his thinking.

But I was able at one point to even make biggyfred grudgingly agree with me on this particular philosophy, and that's one feather in my cap I'll wear with pride.

Law · « **Reply #22 on:** May 12, 2004, 02:21:01 PM »

Quote from: Demosthenes

You evidently believe it is morally justifiable to violate the rights of individuals in order to serve "a greater good".

That, my friend, is a summary worthy of a spin-doctor.

I look at it a bit more rationally though. US federal income tax revenues were roughly 18% of GDP for 1996 (first complete table I could find), US foreign aid for 1996 was 1% of federal tax revenue. Hardly a third of the people's income.

I know this simply walks into a divine libertarian trap but, you are required by law to pay federal taxes, regardless of whether you approve of how the revenue is spent. The simple fact is no country can survive without taxing its citizens. I would much rather see my tax money go to (forgive the example) paying the US's staggering debt to the UN and World Bank, or simply used as real foreign aid (i.e. no more money to wealthy nations that don't need it whom shall remain nameless) than to see it divied up in pork spending by corrupt members of Congress so they can buy votes for their next term in office.

I agree, we want the same thing, I just think withdrawing completely into our shells in counter-productive. It has failed as a nation policy before and the "small world" we have created, it will fail even faster now.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #23 on:** May 12, 2004, 02:42:01 PM »

Quote from: Law

Quote from: Demosthenes
You evidently believe it is morally justifiable to violate the rights of individuals in order to serve "a greater good".

That, my friend, is a summary worthy of a spin-doctor.

I look at it a bit more rationally though. US federal income tax revenues were roughly 18% of GDP for 1996 (first complete table I could find), US foreign aid for 1996 was 1% of federal tax revenue. Hardly a third of the people's income.

I meant as an overall. I'm aware that it's only 1% (a little more now, actually, but not much more)... that's why I lumped it all together.

However, the amount is irrelevent. The method of its redistribution is what I take issue with.

Quote

I know this simply walks into a divine libertarian trap but, you are required by law to pay federal taxes, regardless of whether you approve of how the revenue is spent. The simple fact is no country can survive without taxing its citizens.

I'd be far more willing to compromise on that issue if the "give 'em an inch they'll take a mile" adage weren't so true when it comes to government, taxation, spending, and freedom.

I'd have much less of a problem with taxation if we had a military a quarter as costly as what we have, and no corporate welfare, no aid to other countries, no healthcare subsidies, and a million other things in which the government has no place being involved.

I don't like the idea of forcing childless people to pay for the education of others, for example, but I'd be far more willing to accept that if it weren't for so many other things on top of it.

We have to start our compromise from some position... my starting point is "taxation is theft" and "NO taxation is acceptable"... and I go from there because it's the only way I can remain internally consistent with my position on individual rights.

The ends do not justify the means. I'd love to take care of the poor of every nation around the world.

Call me selfish, but my own family comes first. I give as generously as I can afford to a variety of charities every year, whenever possible.

I'd give more if what I earn was not uncerimoniously siphoned off the top of every paycheck, however.

Fact of the matter is, my own come first. I give what I can afford, because I believe that charity is necessary and it's "the right thing to do".

But I don't believe that taking it by force from other individuals is "the right way to do it". That's morally repugnant to me, and I resent every penny, I don't care WHAT it's used for.

The fact that I, like everyone else, had no choice about the matter is the issue.

Just to head off what I know is coming, the "if you don't like it, get out" argument is just as invalid here as it is when the Religious Conservative Right claims that people that don't like living in a "Christian nation" can get out as well.

Quote

I would much rather see my tax money go to (forgive the example) paying the US's staggering debt to the UN and World Bank, or simply used as real foreign aid (i.e. no more money to wealthy nations that don't need it whom shall remain nameless) than to see it divied up in pork spending by corrupt members of Congress so they can buy votes for their next term in office.

On that you have my wholehearted agreement.

Quote

I agree, we want the same thing, I just think withdrawing completely into our shells in counter-productive. It has failed as a nation policy before and the "small world" we have created, it will fail even faster now.

Never once in our country's history have we had any period of consistent non-interventionism.

Note that I don't say "isolationism". There's a difference. Isolationism IS unrealistic and counter-productive, and I think that's what you're misinterpreting my position as.

Non-interventionism is not the same thing. Heck, compared to true isolationists, I'm a moderate.

Anonymous · « **Reply #24 on:** May 12, 2004, 02:56:55 PM »

Quote from: Demosthenes

We have to start our compromise from some position... my starting point is "taxation is theft" and "NO taxation is acceptable"... and I go from there because it's the only way I can remain internally consistent with my position on individual rights.

Taxation is theft? That's a little strong. Like law said, taxation is necessary for a country to function.

Theft is when something is taken from you against your consent. So if you want to be literal then yes taxation is theft for a lot of people. I pay taxes with consent. To me taxation isn't theft. Like everyone else, I often don't like how my tax money is being spent, but that is a seperate issue.

When I had an operation not long ago, I didn't get a bill when I was done. I got 12 years of education without a bill. Yes, taxes are taken from us and we cannot avoid them. There are laws to force us to pay taxes. But we are getting it back every day. When you drive to work or anywhere else, how do you think that pavement ended up there? Someone paid for the raoads you drive one and for the bridges you cross. It's those "robbers" that took money from every single paycheck you earned. So is it really theft when in the end you are enjoying the benefits?

Taxation is necessary. That's not the issue.

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: The Disaster Of Iraq - Enough Is Enough! (Read 12648 times)

Anonymous

Anonymous

Anonymous

Anonymous

Anonymous

Anonymous

Anonymous