[y66]

The war on drugs increased the threat of terrorism. If the war on cardiac disease became a war for drugs, maybe that would work.

I don't mind golfing in the rain. But I'm not for golfing when there is evidence of approaching lightening or for eating eggs with butter every day, even if the eggs don't come from Iowa. I definitely agree with the notion that we should respond to threats in proportion to their probabilities. I don't get the control based distinction that was made earlier at all.

[hrothgar]

tgoodwinsr, on Sep 1 2010, 02:23 AM, said:

After all, the Baath party severely mismanaged the country similar to the situation in Zimbabwe, destroying a large part of the 'fertile crescent.'"

The fertile crescent hasn't been that fertile since the day that Hulagu and his boys wandered through in the mid 13th century...

There's debate about whether soil salinity or the destruction of the irrigation system is the real culprit. However, either way most of the agricultural land was devastated long before the Baath Party.

[Wackojack]

PassedOut, on Aug 31 2010, 10:26 PM, said:

Saddam Hussein was not imposed on the Iraqi people by outsiders. If the Iraqis did not like him, it was up to them to get rid of him. Better yet, they should not have let him take power in the first place. Taking power takes more than the effort of one man.

Saddam Hussein was in fact imposed on the Iraqi people by outsiders. Saddam was a CIA agent in his 20's and then In 1959, Saddam Hussein took part in an attempt to assasinate Abdul-Kharim Qassim who was one of the most popular rulers of Iraq. That attempt failed and Hussein escaped. However, orchestrated by the CIA on 8th of February 1963 officers of the Baath Party overthrew his government and killed Qassim after a phony trial.

The CIA did not like Qassim because like Hugo Chavez today, he promised the oil revenue would have to be returned to the Iraqi people.

[Hanoi5]

Wackojack, on Sep 4 2010, 08:08 PM, said:

The CIA did not like Qassim because like Hugo Chavez today, he promised the oil revenue would have to be returned to the Iraqi people.

I have no idea about Qassim, but Chavez is not returning the revenue to the Venezuelans very... fairly.

More people die in Venezuela from the insecurity than soldiers and civilians in Iraq's war.

For example, a couple of days ago a woman went into a butchery with his son and a guy with a knife wanted to rob her Blackberry; apparently she said no and he just cut her neck, and she died then and there (not much use trying to take her to a hospital, they're in worse shape than the security).

So, I wouldn't compare Chavez to any other people's benefactor, he's just a poser.

[Zelandakh]

PassedOut, on Sep 1 2010, 03:26 AM, said:

Saddam Hussein was not imposed on the Iraqi people by outsiders. If the Iraqis did not like him, it was up to them to get rid of him. Better yet, they should not have let him take power in the first place. Taking power takes more than the effort of one man.

Hitler's rise in Germany was as a direct result of the votes of the German people. When he invaded Poland it was just a private quarrel between Germany and Poland about land rights and sea access. You can always make this sort of argument but it simply does not hold water. It holds even less water now in a global economy than it did in the 1930s.

I believe whole-heartedly that Tony Blair had a deep conviction that he was doing the right thing in Iraq. I would like to believe the same of GWB but there simply is not enough information in the public domain to reach any reasonable conclusion. There is more than a hint of "unfinished business" from his father's time in the White House about it along with a feel of someone having to pay.

But I do not think that regime change as a primary objective can be right. Not only is it open to the question of legality but it also sets some dangerous precedents. There have been countries with worse human rights records than Iraq over the years. If you invade one then why not the other? What about if China decided to ethnically cleanse all Tibetans? Would we consider a war with China? or how about Russia? Surely unthinkable!

If this is really the reality of how the US will make foreign policy then it is no surprise at all that Iran and PR Korea should want nuclear weapons. Treating all rogue countries as if they could pose a military threat (even if they can't) without ignoring the issues going on in the world is surely a sounder basis for intervention policy - neither burying head in the sane nor simply trampling all over the weak.

And finally, the most important factors in cardiac disease are all things that we can do nothing about, most notably hereditary factors and maleness. If you were to usefully compare risk factors between terrorism and diet you would have to factor out all of the non-dietary factors involved in your 1:300 figure. You might also have to adjust the terror ratio depending on your job, locale, holiday habits, etc. There is also an argument that the terror number is only so low because of all the money spent on counter-terrorism activities so if you are also suggesting a change of budget you would need to factor that into your comparison. Perhaps most importantly of all, if you had lost a son or daughter to such action you might feel differently about the relative importance of a (largely) natural death compared with a violent one from a religious war.

[mike777]

Zelandakh, on Sep 5 2010, 12:47 AM, said:

PassedOut, on Sep 1 2010, 03:26 AM, said:

Saddam Hussein was not imposed on the Iraqi people by outsiders. If the Iraqis did not like him, it was up to them to get rid of him. Better yet, they should not have let him take power in the first place. Taking power takes more than the effort of one man.

Hitler's rise in Germany was as a direct result of the votes of the German people. When he invaded Poland it was just a private quarrel between Germany and Poland about land rights and sea access. You can always make this sort of argument but it simply does not hold water. It holds even less water now in a global economy than it did in the 1930s.

I believe whole-heartedly that Tony Blair had a deep conviction that he was doing the right thing in Iraq. I would like to believe the same of GWB but there simply is not enough information in the public domain to reach any reasonable conclusion. There is more than a hint of "unfinished business" from his father's time in the White House about it along with a feel of someone having to pay.

But I do not think that regime change as a primary objective can be right. Not only is it open to the question of legality but it also sets some dangerous precedents. There have been countries with worse human rights records than Iraq over the years. If you invade one then why not the other? What about if China decided to ethnically cleanse all Tibetans? Would we consider a war with China? or how about Russia? Surely unthinkable!

If this is really the reality of how the US will make foreign policy then it is no surprise at all that Iran and PR Korea should want nuclear weapons. Treating all rogue countries as if they could pose a military threat (even if they can't) without ignoring the issues going on in the world is surely a sounder basis for intervention policy - neither burying head in the sane nor simply trampling all over the weak.

And finally, the most important factors in cardiac disease are all things that we can do nothing about, most notably hereditary factors and maleness. If you were to usefully compare risk factors between terrorism and diet you would have to factor out all of the non-dietary factors involved in your 1:300 figure. You might also have to adjust the terror ratio depending on your job, locale, holiday habits, etc. There is also an argument that the terror number is only so low because of all the money spent on counter-terrorism activities so if you are also suggesting a change of budget you would need to factor that into your comparison. Perhaps most importantly of all, if you had lost a son or daughter to such action you might feel differently about the relative importance of a (largely) natural death compared with a violent one from a religious war.

I think you raise interesting points but your facts are a bit off.


-----------


As for China...Mao not only raped young, very young child girls as a matter of state...but killed 20 million out right and maybe 45 million thru enforced famine....




Hitler wanted poland for many reasons we need not to go into(more livable land for germans)......this was not just some dispute.

I dont have the actual number..no doubt someone can research it but I think hitler came to pwer with less than 41% of the vote...Granted he soon..very soon made Germany into a police state...with many many agreeing or silent.......anti jew feelings were widespread to say the least...in many countries....

--------------



With all of that said your last part is well said.......we must think when is war justified........


Some may argue that Pacifism must logically lead to war.........

or

non war leads to Genocide...anyway....interesting points.....

[phil_20686]

Zelandakh, on Sep 5 2010, 12:47 AM, said:

But I do not think that regime change as a primary objective can be right. Not only is it open to the question of legality but it also sets some dangerous precedents. There have been countries with worse human rights records than Iraq over the years. If you invade one then why not the other? What about if China decided to ethnically cleanse all Tibetans? Would we consider a war with China? or how about Russia? Surely unthinkable!

I think that regime change is almost always a primary objective. When two countries go to war it is because their priorities conflict, when it is won, the victors always wish to impose leadership such that the conflicting priorities are resolved, which is, essentially, regime change.

Had Hitler been a genial premier with no eyes on expanding into other countries, there would have been no conflict. Had the communist block not been intent on revolution in the west, there would have been no cold war.

More abstractly, if you consider "regime" to not just be a person, but a set of policies, then trade sanctions and diplomacy with the aim of changing policy is precisely "regime change".

Anyway, what I was really planning to say, is that always in life pragmatism is a part of making moral choices. Even were a countries moral choices/outlook so reprehensible as to demand international intervention, leaders must consider the effect that intervention would have on their own country. Occupying a country the size of iraq is difficult but possible (for the USA) occupying china or russia is not. Moreover, the opinion that doing it once means you have to do it in every case is bizarre. It is analogous to claiming that if i gave £1 to a beggar I must give £1 to every beggar. In reality, even giving the first £1 is morally praiseworthy, even if i subsequently ignore all others.

Engaging in a war with China over the given example of ethnic cleansing in Tibet would almost certainly leave more dead in total than the population of tibet, (approx 2 million). Nevertheless, it could be morally justified if its was a sign to the world that the international community would not tolerate such behavior under any circumstances, regardless of the cost.

In the real world, such a decision seems hard to imagine. Nevertheless, there are a number of african countries where a case could be made for moral intervention. The real problem, as with Iraq, is that such an intervention is a long term deal. It requiures a change of culture. It was naive to think that Iraq would magically become a tolerant westernised democracy. The sunnis and shias in irag have a history of oppressing each other going back centuries. History is replet with examples of democracies that descended into totalitarianism under such circumstances, and it seems likely that Iraq will go that way.

Without even trying we have:
French "Directory" ==> Bonaparte.
Causes include the intense sectarian violence against Catholics following the french revolution, leaving at least 400 000 dead in a decade.
Robert Mugabe's descent into totalitarianism profiting from sectarian violence between marxists and ZANU.
The coup following the Saur uprising in the Afganistan Republic which was at least in part fueled by mistrust between Pashtuns and Durranis (different ethnic/tribal factions).
Franco and Mussolini, who both took control of their countries away from weak parliaments, despite long histories of democracies and tolerant government in spain and Italy.

We who forget the mistakes of the past, are doomed to repeat them. I would predict that left to tis own devices Iraq will revert to a totalitarian state within a decade, along with more oppression etc. Most people will even tolerate it as with Saddam, as a strong ruler who lets you live in relative peace despite few civil liberties, is preferable to a weak democracy with intense sectarian violence. Currently, about 50 people per day are dying of sectarian violence in Iraq.

In England following the reformation and its associated violence, it took nearly a century for the sectarian violence to end, though at least it was largely confined to the upper classes. In Ireland the separatist Violence has been on and off for 80 odd years - if you even count it as finished now. I think America should have been planning a fifty year strategy for Iraq. Leaving now seems like a poor move IMO.

[Winstonm]

The American people's fault for electing an administration who believed the characters played by Bruce Willis were real and who thought Cowboy Cop was the best model for State Department diplomats: yippee ki-ay, motherfucker!

[kenberg]

Hitler has been mentioned, as he often is. I don't want to talk much about Adolf, but I do sometimes reflect on the change that has come to my country (the USA) since that era.

Some facts from the past:

WWI, the Great War, started in 1914. In 1916 Wilson ran for re-election based on the slogan "He kept us out of war". We entered the war in April of 1917.

WWII started in Europe in 1939 with the invasion of Poland. France and Norway fell in the spring of 1940, the Battle of Britain was later that year. We entered the war in December of 1941, two years after it started, and no doubt would not have done so then had it not been for Pearl Harbor. For that matter, on Dec. 8 we declared war against Japan, not Germany (but we understood the war would be against "The Axis").

Well, that was then, this is now. From one extreme to the other. No doubt we have responsibilities in the world, but we cannot do what we cannot do, and we pretty much make a mess of things when we overreach. It was mentioned above that Tony Blair did as he thought right and I expect that that is true. Probably the same for GWB, and even Cheney. Few people intend to do the wrong thing. But they were way, way, off. There were WMDs but there weren't. We would be welcomed but we weren't. The mission was accomplished but it wasn't. We could be in and out quickly but not so. Mr. Bush and his team were massively mistaken about what could be accomplished and at what cost. I don't dispute that they were less than totally honest but probably no more dishonest than LBJ with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Well ok, not a very high standard. But back then too I think LBJ did what he thought was right. It just wasn't right. Often I think that the most harm in the world is done not by evil people but by people who severely misjudge reality.

The world is different, and the United States is different, from 1939. But there will always be limits to what any country can do by force, and we need to recognize these limits and act accordingly.

[PassedOut]

phil_20686, on Sep 6 2010, 08:50 AM, said:

I think America should have been planning a fifty year strategy for Iraq. Leaving now seems like a poor move IMO.

I disagree completely.

America has neither the responsibility nor the capacity to stop sectarian strife in Iraq or elsewhere. Given that Bush made the stupid decision -- however well-intended in his doofus way of thinking -- to invade Iraq, the only responsible course now is to leave in an organized, predictable way. The Iraqis can use that time as they see fit. I don't expect them to use it well, but will be happy if they do.

[vuroth]

PassedOut, on Aug 31 2010, 10:26 PM, said:

If the Iraqis did not like him, it was up to them to get rid of him.

Grabbing your pitchfork and heading to town worked 220 years ago, but does it still work now?

I'm not sold in the idea that revolution can really work today.

[PassedOut]

Some people thought that the Soviet Union was too powerful to fall. They were wrong.

[shyams]

PassedOut, on Sep 7 2010, 03:13 PM, said:

Some people thought that the Soviet Union was too powerful to fall. They were wrong.

But did the USSR fall due to a people-led revolution?

[hrothgar]

shyams, on Sep 7 2010, 05:15 PM, said:

PassedOut, on Sep 7 2010, 03:13 PM, said:

Some people thought that the Soviet Union was too powerful to fall. They were wrong.

But did the USSR fall due to a people-led revolution?

I think that the attempted Green Revolution in Iran last year is the most appropriate comparison.

I don't think that there is much doubt that a very significant portion of the Iranian population would like to see the current regime removed.

The protest movement was crushed mercilessly by the government.

Please don't interprete this in any way, shape, or form as arguing that the US should attempt to topple the Iranian regime. (I think that this type of external threat would actually help solidify popular support)

[phil_20686]

shyams, on Sep 7 2010, 09:15 AM, said:

PassedOut, on Sep 7 2010, 03:13 PM, said:

Some people thought that the Soviet Union was too powerful to fall. They were wrong.

But did the USSR fall due to a people-led revolution?

Communism in Poland did, look for stuff about the Solidarity Movement.

[Aberlour10]

shyams, on Sep 7 2010, 09:15 AM, said:

PassedOut, on Sep 7 2010, 03:13 PM, said:

Some people thought that the Soviet Union was too powerful to fall. They were wrong.

But did the USSR fall due to a people-led revolution?

No doubt the Sovjet Union fell because enormous economic problems starting at the beginning of the 80's. They armed themselfs to economic death. This all is known.

Western countries thought of course about how to help in this process. Interesting fact >>> They pressed Saudi Arabia and other gulf states to grow the oil production continuouselly in these years >>> oil price fell rapidly>>> the most important $ earnings of the SU too. Gorbatschov said later.. the Russians had to resolve all the reserves in valuta and gold due this this problem.

Oil price

High Low

1984 31,50 26,04
1985 31,82 24,66
1986 26,60 9,75
1987 22,76 14,90
1988 18,92 12,28

[Aberlour10]

phil_20686, on Sep 7 2010, 09:49 AM, said:

shyams, on Sep 7 2010, 09:15 AM, said:

PassedOut, on Sep 7 2010, 03:13 PM, said:

Some people thought that the Soviet Union was too powerful to fall. They were wrong.

But did the USSR fall due to a people-led revolution?

Communism in Poland did, look for stuff about the Solidarity Movement.

This was only the beginning, but very very important

[phil_20686]

PassedOut, on Sep 7 2010, 08:44 AM, said:

phil_20686, on Sep 6 2010, 08:50 AM, said:

I think America should have been planning a fifty year strategy for Iraq. Leaving now seems like a poor move IMO.

I disagree completely.

America has neither the responsibility nor the capacity to stop sectarian strife in Iraq or elsewhere. Given that Bush made the stupid decision -- however well-intended in his doofus way of thinking -- to invade Iraq, the only responsible course now is to leave in an organized, predictable way. The Iraqis can use that time as they see fit. I don't expect them to use it well, but will be happy if they do.

I'm afraid that once you let the cat out of the bag, what happens next is your responsibility. By invading iraq, you made the future of that country your responsibility, and if Iraq turns out badly that could be a disaster for the World.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I think American Interventionism is a good thing. There are many places where American intervention has had strong positive outcomes, and I am talking about both Military and Economic Interventions. Western Eurpe in particular owes America a lot for assistance in two world wars, and for the immense programme of aid given to help rebuild Britian France and Germany. South Korea would certainly have lost the Korean war without American aid, and they Seem to be doing alright. Its very unlikely that Taiwan would still be (relatively) free without the ever present threat of American involvement and military aid should China become belligerent.

However, in such a Policy it is impossible to know everything. Not every intervention can end well. Vietnam is the obvious example. CIA's involvement in the rise of the Muhajadeen in Afganistan another. The Bay of Pigs, and now Iraq.

It would be a potential disaster if Iraq ends so badly that it shakes american's beleif that they can make a difference, and they return to isolationist tendencies. I dont think Bush can be blamed for misjudging quite how much the different factions in Iraq hate each other, you might think that a few decades under a tyrant would be enough for people to want to move on. However, I do think that not enough plans were made for rebuilding Iraq, and how to combat the inevitable counter insurgency.

In these complex situations, it is impossible to see with certainty what the fallout will be. It is also impossible to know with any certainty what might have happened had Saddam died and passed on power to his two deranged children. A civil war, and or a war against someone else, was certainly a likely, if not probable, outcome.

However, the main point is, that if you intervene, sometimes it goes badly. Ask a hostage negotiater. That is not a reason never to intervene. If iraq goes so badly that it breaks america's willingness to intervene in the future, that would be a very bad thing. Further, it will undermine America's political capital in international relations. If America can claim in the future that yeah iraq went badly, but we stayed to put it right, then you can get a lot of mileage from that in international affairs. More international support for intervention, and less suspicion from those you are liberating/incading/protecting.

[phil_20686]

Aberlour10, on Sep 7 2010, 09:59 AM, said:

phil_20686, on Sep 7 2010, 09:49 AM, said:

shyams, on Sep 7 2010, 09:15 AM, said:

PassedOut, on Sep 7 2010, 03:13 PM, said:

Some people thought that the Soviet Union was too powerful to fall. They were wrong.

But did the USSR fall due to a people-led revolution?

Communism in Poland did, look for stuff about the Solidarity Movement.

This was only the beginning, but very very important

Sure, that wasnt really my point, the point was that a People led revolution in Poland overthrew the entrenched communist party there.

[PassedOut]

phil_20686, on Sep 7 2010, 10:13 AM, said:

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that I think American Interventionism is a good thing. There are many places where American intervention has had strong positive outcomes, and I am talking about both Military and Economic Interventions. Western Eurpe in particular owes America a lot for assistance in two world wars, and for the immense programme of aid given to help rebuild Britian France and Germany.

Assisting allies who are fighting an invader is one thing. Being the invader is quite another.