When does it become necessary?

Rushlimbo

NCfan wrote:

How so? I said that things like mass graves do not happen in the U.S. or other democracies.

I don't see where accidentally killing some civillians in Panama in the 80's equates to disproving what I said.

Even if there are a few exceptions, it's still the rule. Saying otherwise is just grasping at straws.

I talk about the constant and purpose torture, jailing and murder of innocent civillians in Iraq by their own government and you try to compare the U.S. to that with a lame example in Panama...

Can't you just admit that the U.S. is not like that?

Tell that to the Native Americans and any former colony of the British empire.

even flow?

Of course NC man would be all for an invasion of America by a force that thought they were doing things wrong. Because with an open mind you would be able to fathom that thought and agree that maybe you are not the right way and of course bombing a country to bits to prove your point makes you so many more friends.


Maybe, now just maybe, being on a farm with nary a skyscraper in sight, tending the crops, trading with the community who you actually know, with no polution coming from smoke stacks is a good way to live. Just not in your world though. So by damned you need to change that because it hampers your lifestyle. Yeeeeeeyah!

NCfan

hippiemom wrote:

Other cultures are not like ours, and they don't want to be. Democracy in Iraq is not going to lead to "life choices, education, social tolerance and opportunity." That's not what they want. Choices will be limited, education will likely not be provided to women, social tolerance ... well, let's just say that's not a concept that they're terribly familiar with.

So we're creating a debt that our great-grandchildren will be paying off, and Americans and Iraqisare dying left and right, for what? They're not going to wind up with anything remotely resembling what you and I think of as a democracy. It's quite possible we could find ourselves dealing with a country that's more troublesome to us than Saddam's Iraq ever was.

I think it would be nice if all countries respected basic human rights too, but I don't think we can make that happen. Hell, we can't even make it happen in our own country. Yes, we treat people better than Saddam did, but a nation that can now imprison people indefinitely without a hearing, without allowing them so much as a phone call, has no business trying to introduce a concept of "human rights" to anyone else.

I don't think you are being bigoted and claiming that Iraqi's aren't "capable" of creating and living in a sustainable democracy - I think you are just saying that Iraqi's "don't want" democracy.

Simple question - how do you know what Iraiqi's want? Over 80% of them have voted 3 times in national elections. Wouldn't that indicate something about their desire to participate and have a say in their future, as opposed to living under a dictator or Inman?

I'm not saying you are wrong, but I am saying that you are too quick to pass judgement. The same argument you make now could have been said about many thriving democracies today.

NCfan

Milhouse VanHouten wrote:

The arguement that "the U.S. is not like that" only holds water if you look at what we do within our own borders to our own citizens. The shit we've facilitated and have done to civilians in other countries is pretty fucking heinous. I'm not sure how violating the rights of only non-Americans makes it acceptable.

Agreed. And I don't condone the shit we've done to others. But that is all the more reason to establish other democracies. If you look at all the bad shit we've done, none of it has taken place in other democratic countries.

Our system is the best we've got. It's the humans who manage it who are flawed, and that will always be the case.

I guess I'm saying don't trounce democracy becuase of what a particular administration did in the past.

1970RR

This policy of "establishing democracies" is what got us in trouble in the first place.
Our policy should be that we do not interfere with any other country unless there is a direct threat of attack or invasion.

Milhouse VanHouten

NCfan wrote:

If you look at all the bad shit we've done, none of it has taken place in other democratic countries.

Uh, not true. We've removed more than a few democratically elected leaders that we didn't like in other countries.

El_Kabong

NCfan wrote:

How so? I said that things like mass graves do not happen in the U.S. or other democracies.

I don't see where accidentally killing some civillians in Panama in the 80's equates to disproving what I said.

Even if there are a few exceptions, it's still the rule. Saying otherwise is just grasping at straws.

I talk about the constant and purpose torture, jailing and murder of innocent civillians in Iraq by their own government and you try to compare the U.S. to that with a lame example in Panama...

Can't you just admit that the U.S. is not like that?

we killed thousands of civilians (to oust a former CIA agent who stopped following orders AND was a needless war) and to try and hide the fact we dumped their bodies into mass graves...how is that 'lame'? there are a bunch of similarities to the iraq war as well. i'm curious what the cut off point is to deaths vs being lame or not? was the holocaust 'lame'? what about east timor?

what about the death squads we created, armed, trained and funded throughout the region? their purpose was to intimidate the populace thru 'torture, jailing and murder of innocent civillians'. what's the difference if we do it or we tell others to?

you need to accept giving someone the tools, money and know how to do these things make you jsut as guilty. that's like saying if i hired a hitman to kill abook, when i go to trial i say 'but i didn't actually do it myself!' so? i still paid someone else to do it and that makes me guilty.

decides2dream

El_Kabong wrote:

you need to accept giving someone the tools, money and know how to do these things make you jsut as guilty. that's like saying if i hired a hitman to kill abook, when i go to trial i say 'but i didn't actually do it myself!' so? i still paid someone else to do it and that makes me guilty.

exactly. just because we don't bury our bodies in our own backyard, does not end any culpability and responsibility.


anyway, i am glad to see that most here agree it is NOT opur place to go spreading our way of life elsewhere. damn, why can't we be the majority of voters?

hippiemom

NCfan wrote:

I don't think you are being bigoted and claiming that Iraqi's aren't "capable" of creating and living in a sustainable democracy - I think you are just saying that Iraqi's "don't want" democracy.

Simple question - how do you know what Iraiqi's want? Over 80% of them have voted 3 times in national elections. Wouldn't that indicate something about their desire to participate and have a say in their future, as opposed to living under a dictator or Inman?

I'm not saying you are wrong, but I am saying that you are too quick to pass judgement. The same argument you make now could have been said about many thriving democracies today.

I think Iraqis are capable of doing whatever they want to do, and what a bunch of devout Muslims want in a government is not going to resemble what Americans have. Take a look around the middle east, nothing remotely close to a western-style democracy exists anywhere. Why on earth would you think that Iraq would be any different?

I didn't say that they don't want to vote, don't want to participate in their future ... I think most human beings want that. I'm saying that it's highly likely that you won't be happy with what they choose.

InsaneSoup

http://www.ibi-usa.com/pgsp.ibi-usa.com/pdf_pubs/GovernanceMuslim.pdf

NCfan

El_Kabong wrote:

we killed thousands of civilians (to oust a former CIA agent who stopped following orders AND was a needless war) and to try and hide the fact we dumped their bodies into mass graves...how is that 'lame'? there are a bunch of similarities to the iraq war as well. i'm curious what the cut off point is to deaths vs being lame or not? was the holocaust 'lame'? what about east timor?

what about the death squads we created, armed, trained and funded throughout the region? their purpose was to intimidate the populace thru 'torture, jailing and murder of innocent civillians'. what's the difference if we do it or we tell others to?

you need to accept giving someone the tools, money and know how to do these things make you jsut as guilty. that's like saying if i hired a hitman to kill abook, when i go to trial i say 'but i didn't actually do it myself!' so? i still paid someone else to do it and that makes me guilty.

I really don't know what you're trying to say here... it is painfully obvious that the U.S. is a far cry from the backward ass regimes in the Middle East in terms of civil rights, equality, openess, opportunity, sufferage, etc.

I don't understand why you feel the need to try to tell me about all this bad shit we've done throughout history in regards to our foreign policy.

I condem Saddam Huessien, Assad, the Saudi Royal family, etc.... the CURRENT leaders and the CURRENT state-sponsored oppression in those countries. And how do you respond?

Do you condemn it as well? No, you condem the U.S. And what is more lame, is your examples of PAST administrations and PAST policies that would no more be excepted today than common slavery.

You are comparing apples to oranges. The days of U.S. realpolitic are OVER in the Middle East. We are not propping up sheiks and dictators as a bullwark to Soviet Communism. Rather, we are overthrowing them and putting pressure on others to CHANGE.

El_Kabong

NCfan wrote:

I really don't know what you're trying to say here... it is painfully obvious that the U.S. is a far cry from the backward ass regimes in the Middle East in terms of civil rights, equality, openess, opportunity, sufferage, etc.

I don't understand why you feel the need to try to tell me about all this bad shit we've done throughout history in regards to our foreign policy.

I condem Saddam Huessien, Assad, the Saudi Royal family, etc.... the CURRENT leaders and the CURRENT state-sponsored oppression in those countries. And how do you respond?

Do you condemn it as well? No, you condem the U.S. And what is more lame, is your examples of PAST administrations and PAST policies that would no more be excepted today than common slavery.

You are comparing apples to oranges. The days of U.S. realpolitic are OVER in the Middle East. We are not propping up sheiks and dictators as a bullwark to Soviet Communism. Rather, we are overthrowing them and putting pressure on others to CHANGE.

past administrations? who was sec of state? cheney who was his undersecretary? wolfowitz rummy was there, too. so was perle, so was addington...looooots of ppl in this administration were calling the shots back then, too. wolfowitz and cheney wrote the fucking policy papers we are following now to a t! are you saying they had a change of heart and no longer accept their policies in the past?

so instead of having dick cheney on tv telling the american public noriega is a threat to the US and our security he is on tv telling the american public saddam is a threat to the US and our security...afterwards when he is asked how he was a threat, instead of saying noriega was a bad man and we liberated a lot of ppl he is on tv saying saddam was a bad man and we liberated a lot of ppl.

as to why i bring it up? you asked!

your initial post said we don't have mass graves, i proved you wrong, only it's not filled w/ americans it's filled w/ the innocent ppl in other countries we invaded needlessly.

get your head out of the sand, buddy

what did rummy, cheney, wolfowitz, perle...think back in 98?
"a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts" in Iraq to "protect our vital interests in the gulf"

hmm, what were their thoughts in 92?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfowitz_Doctrine
Wolfowitz Doctrine is a pseudo-name given to the initial version of the Defense Planning Guidance for the 1994-99 fiscal years (dated Feb 18, 1992) authored by U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Paul Wolfowitz and his deputy Scooter Libby.

Not intended for public release, it was leaked to The New York Times on March 7th, 1992 and sparked a public controversy about U.S. foreign and defense policy. The document was widely criticized as imperialist as the document outlined a policy of unilateralism and pre-emptive military action to suppress potential threats from rogue nations and prevent any other nation from rising to superpower status.

Such was the outcry that the document was hastily re-written under the close supervision of U.S. Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell before being officially released on April 16. Although the initial release was denounced at the time it was leaked many of its tenets have since re-emerged in the Bush Doctrine.

Superpower Status
The doctrine announces the U.S’s status as the world’s only remaining superpower following the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War and proclaims it’s main objective to be retaining that status.

"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to general global power."
This was substantially re-written in the April 16 release.

"Our most fundamental goal is to deter or defeat attack from whatever source... The second goal is to strengthen and extend the system of defense arrangements that binds democratic and like-minded nations together in common defense against aggression, build habits of cooperation, avoid the renationalization of security policies, and provide security at lower costs and with lower risks for all. Our preference for a collective response to preclude threats or, if necessary, to deal with them is a key feature of our regional defense strategy. The third goal is to preclude any hostile power from dominating a region critical to our interests, and also thereby to strengthen the barriers against the re-emergence of a global threat to the interests of the U.S. and our allies."


U.S. Primacy
The doctrine establishes the U.S’s leadership role within the new world order.

"The U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. In non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. We must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."
This was substantially re-written in the April 16 release.

"One of the primary tasks we face today in shaping the future is carrying long standing alliances into the new era, and turning old enmities into new cooperative relationships. If we and other leading democracies continue to build a democratic security community, a much safer world is likely to emerge. If we act separately, many other problems could result."


Unilateralism
The doctrine downplays the value of international coalitions.

"Like the coalition that opposed Iraqi aggression, we should expect future coalitions to be ad hoc assemblies, often not lasting beyond the crisis being confronted, and in many cases carrying only general agreement over the objectives to be accomplished. Nevertheless, the sense that the world order is ultimately backed by the U.S. will be an important stabilizing factor."
This was re-written with a change in emphasis in the April 16 release.

"Certain situations like the crisis leading to the Gulf War are likely to engender ad hoc coalitions. We should plan to maximize the value of such coalitions. This may include specialized roles for our forces as well as developing cooperative practices with others."


Pre-emptive Intervention
The doctrine stated the U.S’s right to intervene when and where it believed necessary.

While the U.S. cannot become the world's policeman, by assuming responsibility for righting every wrong, we will retain the preeminent responsibility for addressing selectively those wrongs which threaten not only our interests, but those of our allies or friends, or which could seriously unsettle international relations.
This was softened slighlty in the April 16 release.

"While the United States cannot become the world's policeman and assume responsibility for solving every international security problem, neither can we allow our critical interests to depend solely on international mechanisms that can be blocked by countries whose interests may be very different than our own. Where our allies interests are directly affected, we must expect them to take an appropriate share of the responsibility, and in some cases play the leading role; but we maintain the capabilities for addressing selectively those security problems that threaten our own interests."

Oil
The doctrine clarified the strategic value of the Middle East and Southwest Asia.

"In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil."
The April 16 release was much more circumspect and reaffirmed U.S. commitments to Israel.

"In the Middle East and Persian Gulf, we seek to foster regional stability, deter aggression against our friends and interests in the region, protect U.S. nationals and property, and safeguard our access to international air and seaways and to the region's oil. The United States is committed to the security of Israel and to maintaining the qualitative edge that is critical to Israel's security. Israel's confidence in its security and U.S.-Israel strategic cooperation contribute to the stability of the entire region, as demonstrated once again during the Persian Gulf War. At the same time, our assistance to our Arab friends to defend themselves against aggression also strengthens security throughout the region, including for Israel."

John Budge

NCfan wrote:

Nobody put us in charge, I don't think that God or some divine being has empowered America and wants us to change the world.

But it is shear reality that the U.S. is in fact the biggest stabilizing force in the world. We create stability for others. And we also have the ability to create change through many different avenues - economic pressure, mititary action, example, diplomacy.

Yeah, Iraq and Afghanistan are SO stable right now. LOL.

El_Kabong

El_Kabong wrote:

past administrations? who was sec of state? cheney who was his undersecretary? wolfowitz rummy was there, too. so was perle, so was addington...looooots of ppl in this administration were calling the shots back then, too. wolfowitz and cheney wrote the fucking policy papers we are following now to a t! are you saying they had a change of heart and no longer accept their policies in the past?

so instead of having dick cheney on tv telling the american public noriega is a threat to the US and our security he is on tv telling the american public saddam is a threat to the US and our security...afterwards when he is asked how he was a threat, instead of saying noriega was a bad man and we liberated a lot of ppl he is on tv saying saddam was a bad man and we liberated a lot of ppl.

as to why i bring it up? you asked!

your initial post said we don't have mass graves, i proved you wrong, only it's not filled w/ americans it's filled w/ the innocent ppl in other countries we invaded needlessly.

get your head out of the sand, buddy

what did rummy, cheney, wolfowitz, perle...think back in 98?
"a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts" in Iraq to "protect our vital interests in the gulf"

hmm, what were their thoughts in 92?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfowitz_Doctrine
Wolfowitz Doctrine is a pseudo-name given to the initial version of the Defense Planning Guidance for the 1994-99 fiscal years (dated Feb 18, 1992) authored by U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Paul Wolfowitz and his deputy Scooter Libby.

Not intended for public release, it was leaked to The New York Times on March 7th, 1992 and sparked a public controversy about U.S. foreign and defense policy. The document was widely criticized as imperialist as the document outlined a policy of unilateralism and pre-emptive military action to suppress potential threats from rogue nations and prevent any other nation from rising to superpower status.

Such was the outcry that the document was hastily re-written under the close supervision of U.S. Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell before being officially released on April 16. Although the initial release was denounced at the time it was leaked many of its tenets have since re-emerged in the Bush Doctrine.

Superpower Status
The doctrine announces the U.S’s status as the world’s only remaining superpower following the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War and proclaims it’s main objective to be retaining that status.

"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to general global power."
This was substantially re-written in the April 16 release.

"Our most fundamental goal is to deter or defeat attack from whatever source... The second goal is to strengthen and extend the system of defense arrangements that binds democratic and like-minded nations together in common defense against aggression, build habits of cooperation, avoid the renationalization of security policies, and provide security at lower costs and with lower risks for all. Our preference for a collective response to preclude threats or, if necessary, to deal with them is a key feature of our regional defense strategy. The third goal is to preclude any hostile power from dominating a region critical to our interests, and also thereby to strengthen the barriers against the re-emergence of a global threat to the interests of the U.S. and our allies."


U.S. Primacy
The doctrine establishes the U.S’s leadership role within the new world order.

"The U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. In non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. We must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."
This was substantially re-written in the April 16 release.

"One of the primary tasks we face today in shaping the future is carrying long standing alliances into the new era, and turning old enmities into new cooperative relationships. If we and other leading democracies continue to build a democratic security community, a much safer world is likely to emerge. If we act separately, many other problems could result."


Unilateralism
The doctrine downplays the value of international coalitions.

"Like the coalition that opposed Iraqi aggression, we should expect future coalitions to be ad hoc assemblies, often not lasting beyond the crisis being confronted, and in many cases carrying only general agreement over the objectives to be accomplished. Nevertheless, the sense that the world order is ultimately backed by the U.S. will be an important stabilizing factor."
This was re-written with a change in emphasis in the April 16 release.

"Certain situations like the crisis leading to the Gulf War are likely to engender ad hoc coalitions. We should plan to maximize the value of such coalitions. This may include specialized roles for our forces as well as developing cooperative practices with others."


Pre-emptive Intervention
The doctrine stated the U.S’s right to intervene when and where it believed necessary.

While the U.S. cannot become the world's policeman, by assuming responsibility for righting every wrong, we will retain the preeminent responsibility for addressing selectively those wrongs which threaten not only our interests, but those of our allies or friends, or which could seriously unsettle international relations.
This was softened slighlty in the April 16 release.

"While the United States cannot become the world's policeman and assume responsibility for solving every international security problem, neither can we allow our critical interests to depend solely on international mechanisms that can be blocked by countries whose interests may be very different than our own. Where our allies interests are directly affected, we must expect them to take an appropriate share of the responsibility, and in some cases play the leading role; but we maintain the capabilities for addressing selectively those security problems that threaten our own interests."

Oil
The doctrine clarified the strategic value of the Middle East and Southwest Asia.

"In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil."
The April 16 release was much more circumspect and reaffirmed U.S. commitments to Israel.

"In the Middle East and Persian Gulf, we seek to foster regional stability, deter aggression against our friends and interests in the region, protect U.S. nationals and property, and safeguard our access to international air and seaways and to the region's oil. The United States is committed to the security of Israel and to maintaining the qualitative edge that is critical to Israel's security. Israel's confidence in its security and U.S.-Israel strategic cooperation contribute to the stability of the entire region, as demonstrated once again during the Persian Gulf War. At the same time, our assistance to our Arab friends to defend themselves against aggression also strengthens security throughout the region, including for Israel."

<cough>

my2hands

NCfan wrote:

Sure, our government has exploited it's citizens and trampled in the affairs of other countries to make a buck. But Uncle Sam does not round up hundreds of women and children in the night and murder them in huge pits.

native americans (genocide wiped out an entire population)

black slaves

the phillipines

multiple south american operations

nagasaki (entire city was a mass grave)

hiroshima (same as above)

vietnam (estimated 1,000,000 deaths in south asia)

my lai masacre (you think it was isolated?)

support for Sadaam in the 80's

current iraq and ahgan crisis (estimated civilan deaths 50,000-300,000)

and lets not forget the civil war... look what we were/are capable of doing to each other?

and many more


i think you made some good points in your original post...

BUT, i think you also made a mistake almost all of us do, hold our "citizens" in a higher light, as if "they" are not as valuable as "we", or less human than us... once we get beyond these lines on the map and start looking at each other as part of a larger species, true progress can begin