[jtfanclub]

cherdano, on Sep 5 2007, 07:26 PM, said:

jtfanclub, on Sep 5 2007, 02:54 PM, said:

That he did a horrible job of executing the decision doesn't make it a wrong decision.

Yes it does. If after a relay auction where you know partenr's hand exactly, you bid a grand slam that you can only make if you know about trump squeezes, but you don't, then it was the wrong decision to bid it.

Ok, so you do know about trump squeezes, obviously. Your partner puts you into a grand slam that makes on a trump squeeze, but you blow it and go down. I'm going to assume that's happened to you once or twice- it happens to even the best in the world.

Was it a bad decision to bid the grand?

[mikeh]

jtfanclub, on Sep 6 2007, 09:54 AM, said:

If you're going to fight a war, you don't do it halfway. And sometimes, that means you lie to get the support of the populace. Sometimes, hell. I can't think of a modern war that hasn't used some pretence or another to get the populace riled up.

Wow. I thought I was a cynic!

So your approach to the correct governance of a democratic society goes like this:

1. Those in power decide there should be a war. Their motives, you would hope, would be pure, but we know that power corrupts so there has to be a risk that their motives may be less than pure

2. It is permissible for those in power to lie to the electorate: to lie both about the reasons for the war and about the conduct of the proposed enemy. It is permissible, because if the electorate knew the truth, they wouldn't participate in the slaughter of civilians (and others) that the war will cause.

This is breathtaking. You would be at home in Ministry of Truth in an Orwellian dictatorship.

If it is permissible to lie to the electorate about a war... are there ANY limits on the right to lie? How about the right to lie about the level of terrorist threat.. the almost comical manipulation of 'threat level' used by the Bush regime in the months leading up to the 2004 Presidential election? Any bets we won't see similar warnings starting in about a year's time? Of course, that supposes that Bush likes the republican candidate

One cannot have a true democracy without an informed electorate. The very notion that it is permissible to lie to the electorate is antithetical to democratic thinking. The fact that those in power routinely lie is NOT a justification of the practice, but merely a reminder that few, if any, actually live in a real democracy.

But we come close when we deplore lying: when we have methods of finding out the truth, and when the liars pay the ultimate political price of losing when found out. If we EVER cross the line to the point where we, as members of the electorate, WANT to be lied to, then we have surrendered our right to live in a democratic society.

I, for one, do not want to live in a world in which I want my rulers to lie to me... a world in which lying is acceptable, rather than unavoidable, conduct.

[ralph23]

Winstonm, on Sep 5 2007, 07:49 PM, said:

Let's say I decide to shoot you because I believe you have been sleeping with my wife; but it turns out you don't even know my wife; however, you have been abusing your own wife.

So has my wrong reason turned into right decision?

Here's a wonderful one I used to love from first year law school:

Hypo 1. X decides to kill himself and jumps off the Empire State Building. As he's cruising past the 50th floor on his way down, Y (the bitter enemy of X) sees him and shoots X in the head, killing him instantly. Y is charged with murder.

Hypo 1a. Suppose X died from fright (he had a weak heart) as he cruised past the 70th floor. Of course, Y didn't know that at the time he pulled the trigger and he still nailed X right between ye old eyeballs with his .357 Magnum. Y is again charged with murder.

Yea, sometimes law school could be fun. Not often but sometimes.

[jtfanclub]

Quote

Wow. I thought I was a cynic!

So your approach to the correct governance of a democratic society goes like this:

1. Those in power decide there should be a war. Their motives, you would hope, would be pure, but we know that power corrupts so there has to be a risk that their motives may be less than pure

2. It is permissible for those in power to lie to the electorate: to lie both about the reasons for the war and about the conduct of the proposed enemy. It is permissible, because if the electorate knew the truth, they wouldn't participate in the slaughter of civilians (and others) that the war will cause.

This is breathtaking. You would be at home in Ministry of Truth in an Orwellian dictatorship.

Wellll...not the way I would have phrased it.

We don't live in a Democracy (at least, those of us in the United States don't). We live in a Republic. In a Republic, you elect people to accomplish certain things. Those things include safety, freedom, etc.

Once you elect the people in question, it's over until the next election. You expect them to succeed in what they were elected to do. They don't come to you and ask your opinion on how they should do that. If you elect Mr. B, and Mr. B decides you should be at war, and you don't want to be at war, well, you shouldn't have elected Mr. B. That's how a Republic is supposed to work.

Quote

If it is permissible to lie to the electorate about a war... are there ANY limits on the right to lie?

Um, there's a rather big difference between lying to get/keep in office, and lying to accomplish what you were elected to office to do.

Quote

The fact that those in power routinely lie is NOT a justification of the practice, but merely a reminder that few, if any, actually live in a real democracy.

Real Democracies get their asses kicked in wars. You can't have your front line troops outvoting your generals. A Republic is a compromise, where we elect our leaders and then are expected to follow them. The more terrible the situation is, the more the compromise favors Dictatorship over Democracy.

Quote

But we come close when we deplore lying: when we have methods of finding out the truth, and when the liars pay the ultimate political price of losing when found out.

Ah, the Alucard Solution. If in order to have a war you have to lie (which seems to be always true), and lies will always be found out, and the liars will have to pay the ultimate price, voila, no more wars!

But we knew Bush had lied about WMDs before the 2004 election. The electorate still voted for him. What does that tell you?

Quote

I, for one, do not want to live in a world in which I want my rulers to lie to me... a world in which lying is acceptable, rather than unavoidable, conduct.

It's acceptable if it's unavoidable, but it's unacceptable if it's acceptable?

Geez, who's Orwellian now?

Those of us who wished to know the truth about WMDs and al Qaeda before we invaded Iraq knew about it. It's not like there was a massive conspiracy to cover this up. Those who wanted the problem dumbed down to the level of a football game got what they wanted.

Look, if you were in the trenches, and your officer ordered your company to jump out and storm the enemy, what would you want to hear? That your fellow soldiers and your country is counting on you? Or how this assault might make a difference, but mostly likely nobody would care if you succeeded or not, and by the way here's a testimonial from the last soldiers who tried it and their current list of injuries? Which of those is going to make your side more likely to win?

I do have a problem with lying and manufactured evidence, sure. I didn't vote for them in 2004. I wouldn't mind if they were impeached. But I also don't expect the complete truth about something as complex as a war. Even if they gave it to me, I doubt I wouldn't understand it. Just trying to figure out the international ramifications ahead of time can be staggering.

But if I actually want to find this stuff out, it's all out there.

[pbleighton]

Quote

Once you elect the people in question, it's over until the next election. You expect them to succeed in what they were elected to do. They don't come to you and ask your opinion on how they should do that. If you elect Mr. B, and Mr. B decides you should be at war, and you don't want to be at war, well, you shouldn't have elected Mr. B. That's how a Republic is supposed to work.

The executive branch is only one branch of govenment. A declaration of war must be passed by Congress.

And as to your larger point that elected politicians are supposed to ignore the wishes of the electorate, what is your source for this?

Peter

[Winstonm]

Quote

Suppose Bush had gone before Congress and said "Madeleine Albright was asked about half a million kids dying in Iraq due to the Sanctions, and she said 'we think the price is worth it'. If we pull out completely, millions of Kurds and Shiites who helped us and worked with us and trusted us will be killed. Well I say it's not worth it, and I say letting those people die would be a violation of all we hold dear. So I'm going to invade Iraq next week".

You don't go hunting for bear and start off poisoning rabbits. Sacntions are a horrific method to effect change.

I am a non-interventionist. The only worthwhile reason I could justify to myself for warfare or regime change would be genocide, which I define as state-sponsored attempts to eliminate a certain culture.

You don't stick your nose into civil wars.

There is simply no way to resolve 1000 years of middle-eastern strife by taking sides or enforcing one's will. If there is to be peace ever in the middle east, it will be up to those people who live there to find it.

[Al_U_Card]

mikeh, on Sep 6 2007, 11:20 AM, said:

jtfanclub, on Sep 6 2007, 09:54 AM, said:

If you're going to fight a war, you don't do it halfway.  And sometimes, that means you lie to get the support of the populace.  Sometimes, hell.  I can't think of a modern war that hasn't used some pretence or another to get the populace riled up.

Wow. I thought I was a cynic!

So your approach to the correct governance of a democratic society goes like this:

1. Those in power decide there should be a war. Their motives, you would hope, would be pure, but we know that power corrupts so there has to be a risk that their motives may be less than pure

2. It is permissible for those in power to lie to the electorate: to lie both about the reasons for the war and about the conduct of the proposed enemy. It is permissible, because if the electorate knew the truth, they wouldn't participate in the slaughter of civilians (and others) that the war will cause.

This is breathtaking. You would be at home in Ministry of Truth in an Orwellian dictatorship.

Dear boy, you appear to have hit the nail on the head.

Just think neocons and new world order and you are almost there....

[Al_U_Card]

Winstonm, on Sep 6 2007, 01:47 PM, said:

I am a non-interventionist.  The only worthwhile reason I could justify to myself for warfare or regime change would be genocide, which I define as state-sponsored attempts to eliminate a certain culture. 

You don't stick your nose into civil wars.

Back in the 60's Michel Valières wrote a controversial book entitled "White niggers of america" referring to the treatment of the Québecois (french speaking canadians in the province) at the hands of the english speaking "establishment".

During the October crisis, bombings, kidnappings etc. I read a book about how the US would invade Quebec to secure its border should they ever attempt to separate from Canada.

Until it happens to you, it is hard to imagine what it is like to be involved. We can have no idea what Iraq was like pre-Saddam, during Saddam or even now. The horror and the anguish is palpable and truly terrifying. Human suffering at the hands of the powerful for their gain and the obtaining of their ends is unfortunately not a novelty.

[mikeh]

jtfanclub, on Sep 6 2007, 12:48 PM, said:

We don't live in a Democracy (at least, those of us in the United States don't). We live in a Republic. In a Republic, you elect people to accomplish certain things. Those things include safety, freedom, etc.

Once you elect the people in question, it's over until the next election. You expect them to succeed in what they were elected to do. They don't come to you and ask your opinion on how they should do that. If you elect Mr. B, and Mr. B decides you should be at war, and you don't want to be at war, well, you shouldn't have elected Mr. B. That's how a Republic is supposed to work.

I did not study political science in university, but it seems to me that the US (and all 'democratic' governments of which I am aware, are what is known as 'representative democracies', in which the electorate periodically elects representatives to govern the country, delegating, for reasons of practical necessity, decision-making power to individuals who, in theory at least, have attitudes towards issues that are fairly close to the collective attitudes of at least a large proportion of the electorate.

There are several types of representative democracies, and indeed in many states within the US there are elements of direct democracy interwoven with the representative model... as in referenda, which are common in California, as an example.

Being a 'republic' has nothing to do with being democratic... the US is a republic while the UK is a monarchy.. but both are representative democracies. China is a republic, but not a representative democracy because one political party excludes others from participation in the electoral process.

In the US, Congress has the power to declare war. In the case of Iraq, Congress was lied to by the executive and induced, by those lies, to vote for war. That was not informed consent. The elected representatives were misled and this is as fatal, and as wrong, as would be lying to the electorate in a direct-democracy.

Due to the openness of most societies, in terms of media availability, including the internet these days, and because Congress members are always looking to the next election, it is usually the case that individual members are very sensitive to public opinion. Accordingly, the executive had to lie to the public as well as to the congress in order that the congress accept that voting as the executive urged them to do would not harm them come re-election time.

The system works, to the extent that it does, because of accountability and the fact that almost all politicians want to stay in power. Your example re electing Mr. B. is simplistic. Mr. B, or those allied to him, want either to retain power.. if term limits or age restrict the personal retention of power, they want like-minded people to succeed them. So B still needs to believe that he can lie and get away with it.... either because (as I suspect was the case with him) he so wanted there to be WMD that he believed there were WMD or because victory grants immunity with the electorate and he was convinced that he would win.

He was wrong, on almost all counts, and as a direct result the republicans lost control of both houses of congress and seem fated to lose the white house. So there are consequences to lying in a representative democracy, even tho there is no obligation to seek piece-meal voter approval for the acts of the elected representatives.

[TimG]

jtfanclub, on Sep 6 2007, 12:48 PM, said:

But we knew Bush had lied about WMDs before the 2004 election.  The electorate still voted for him.  What does that tell you?

One thing it tells me is that the Democrats did a terrible, terrible, terrible job of selecting a candidate.

[pbleighton]

Quote

One thing it tells me is that the Democrats did a terrible, terrible, terrible job of selecting a candidate.

Yeah, someone who could have articulated a clear position on the major issue of the campaign would have been better.

Peter

[jtfanclub]

Winstonm, on Sep 6 2007, 01:47 PM, said:

You don't go hunting for bear and start off poisoning rabbits. Sacntions are a horrific method to effect change.

And these sanctions went waaay beyond horrific. I believe the first U.N. official to look into it referred to them as genocidal. A blockade would have been less lethal.

Quote

There is simply no way to resolve 1000 years of middle-eastern strife by taking sides or enforcing one's will. If there is to be peace ever in the middle east, it will be up to those people who live there to find it.

Yada yada yada, entangling alliances, blah blah blah. You're right, of course. We had no business involving ourselves in the Iraq-Kuwait War, and we certainly had no business setting up the Kurds and certain Shiite groups to fight Saddam afterwards. That's what happens when you get an ex-CIA head as President.

But this isn't about what we should have done in 1991, or 1998. Given all the stupidity that we had committed up through 2001, what do we do then? Going into a time machine and keeping us out of the 1991 war isn't an option. The Kurds were set up long before BushII got into office.

That's why the whole argument about 'should we have gone in' vs. 'now that we are in, should we stay' is bogus. We'd been in since 1991. We'd been ripping the crap out of the Iraqis for over a decade. We'd been playing politics, killing their kids, invading them, bombing them, arming Saddam's enemies, and so forth. The 'invasion' form of this war has been far less costly to the Iraqis in terms of both people and resources than the 'sanctions' form of the war. Much more harful to us Americans, of course. And much more TV friendly.

Being a non-interventionist is great. What would you recommend doing in 2001, after 10 years of intervention? And if you're sure about your answer, I'll ask you to look closer.

[mike777]

My example in no longer just a theoritical exercise.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070906/ap_on_...ea/syria_israel


USA give bombs and planes to our neighbor(Israel) They use it against another neighbor(Syria)

Did the USA just commit an act of war against syria. Is Syria fully justified now to attack the USA and its citizens in the name of self defense?

If not how often can Israel bomb Syria with weapons we give Israel before Syria can attack us in the name of self defense?

[mike777]

Where is Congress? What are the people running for President saying....did we just commit an act of war against Syria?

It is reactions or non reactions to this that makes it seem this is more an issue of I Hate Bush all of Bush rather than we are committing acts of war without Congress or a full debate, thoughtful debate.

If the these posts are trying to just saythat Bush is a fascist religious bigot..ok. A fascist religious bigot that most of the citizens of the USA either voted for or at the very least did not bother to vote against. 36% did not bother to vote against bush by not voting at all.
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/re...ing/004986.html

If it is Russia and the USA and China and France and 100 other countries are going around committing act of wars and no one seems to really care if they cannot Bash Bush....ok.

[jtfanclub]

mikeh, on Sep 6 2007, 02:01 PM, said:

I disagree. If we wanted to elect officials who "have attitudes towards issues that are fairly close to the collective attitudes of at least a large proportion of the electorate", we'd have President Oprah and Vice President Garth Brooks. We elect people who we believe will do the best job, not those who share our attitudes.

Our officials are not, and never have been, intended as a mechanical aid to vote the way 51% of their electorate would vote. They were expected to make decisions without the consent or even informing the electorate. It had nothing to do with practical necessity: if they wanted to have the elected bodies follow their constituents, they would have built referenda and recalls into the Constitution.

Whatever you want to call it, an Adjective Democracy or a Republic, what we do not have is a Democracy. There was no intent by the Framers that a majority of the people agree with the decisions of the elected.

Quote

In the US, Congress has the power to declare war. In the case of Iraq, Congress was lied to by the executive and induced, by those lies, to vote for war. That was not informed consent. The elected representatives were misled and this is as fatal, and as wrong, as would be lying to the electorate in a direct-democracy.

Absolutely true...at least the second half is. It is fatal and wrong for one Branch to lie to another, regardless of what they say to the public. And GW should go to jail for it...

...if he actually lied to Congress.

Did he? I don't know. Our representatives who are now against the war claim there were lied to and induced by those lies, but what do you expect them to say? "He told the truth and we made the same decision he did, but now we don't like it any more"? Congress had a lot more information than we had. They had direct, closed door briefings with Generals, received top secret documents from our intelligence agencies, and had lots of other resources. I didn't have any of that, and I knew what was going on. I'm going out on a limb here, but I suspect you might have as well. Was Congress actually lied to, or did they have to make an agonizing decision and then distance themselves from it? Well, the Democrats own both Houses now and I don't see any impeachment hearings, so I'm not convinced that Congress gets off that easy.

Quote

He was wrong, on almost all counts, and as a direct result the republicans lost control of both houses of congress and seem fated to lose the white house. So there are consequences to lying in a representative democracy, even tho there is no obligation to seek piece-meal voter approval for the acts of the elected representatives.

There are consequences to doing a bad job. Do you really think if he'd told the truth, invaded anyways, botched it, and insisted on staying long long long long long after we should have left that the electorate would have rewarded that?

[jtfanclub]

mike777, on Sep 6 2007, 03:55 PM, said:

Did the USA just commit an act of war against syria. Is Syria fully justified now to attack the USA and its citizens in the name of self defense?

Well, in this case, no. Israel did not attack Syria, just violated its airspace. Syria is not disputing that, though Israel may or may not have dropped bombs without arming them in order to conserve fuel.

But in the general case, I really don't know.

[mike777]

jtfanclub, on Sep 6 2007, 04:24 PM, said:

mike777, on Sep 6 2007, 03:55 PM, said:

Did the USA just commit an act of war against syria. Is Syria fully justified now to attack the USA and its citizens in the name of self defense?

Well, in this case, no. Israel did not attack Syria, just violated its airspace. Syria is not disputing that, though Israel may or may not have dropped bombs without arming them in order to conserve fuel.

But in the general case, I really don't know.

ok so Syria can fly over NYC drop bombs....that do not explode and it is not an act of war?

Anyway...maybe next time the bombs will explode....as you say....

[Winstonm]

Quote

Being a non-interventionist is great. What would you recommend doing in 2001, after 10 years of intervention? And if you're sure about your answer, I'll ask you to look closer.

Jt: You make good and reasonable points - you are right that handwringing does no one any good.

However, I am of the opinion that continuing incorrect action does not contribute to a solution - when one discovers his actions have been wrong, the first step in rectification is to stop doing what he has been doing.

Here is some daring thought. Poor countries have a desire to be less poor. As an example, instead of massing the world against Iran, how about offering our technical expertise and help in building nuclear reactors?

The quagmire in Iraq is difficult; however, Iraq has held elections and those in power have been chosen. At this point, if the elected officials want the U.S. to withdraw, what right do we have to stay?

There will be slaughter and bloodshed no matter what we do. It gets back to the original statement - when you are doing something wrong, the first stop is to stop repeating it.

[Winstonm]

Quote

USA give bombs and planes to our neighbor(Israel) They use it against another neighbor(Syria)

Did the USA just commit an act of war against syria. Is Syria fully justified now to attack the USA and its citizens in the name of self defense?

The simple answer is no.

I have a lemonade stand and you buy a glass of lemonade from me - or I decide to give you one because I know your brother. You then take the lemonade drink and pour it over your teacher's head. I am guilty of assault? No.

However, if you came to me and said, give me a glass of lemondade so I can pour it on my teacher's head, and you gave me the lemonade, then you would be guilty of conspiracy and probably aiding and abetting.

Was the U.S. in on the plans? That would be the key.

[mike777]

I think it is a bit unfair to equate giving lemonade to a neighbor or giving a neighbor a billion dollars worth of bombs and fighter planes that we know the neighbor will use.

I hope you do not just give billions in bombs and planes to your neighbor and shrug your shoulders and say....not my fault now.....I take no resp.