posted
I won't bite on the whole "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" bait, it's been done to death.
I do have a question, though. Does the fact that our government changes hands so often contribute to the fact that we so frequently back out of conflicts that we've started? If our leadership were more continuous, without periodic needs to revamp policy and win an election, and without constant flipflopping between worldviews, would we be more reliable, diplomatically?
I'm not saying we should get rid of democracy or anything insane like that I'm just curious.
Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kayla, I strongly disagree with you. I think we have had at the least good intentions in every endeavor we have undertaken as a nation. If anything it was our isolationist stance prior to the two world wars that prevented us from doing the "right" thing. In Korea and in Vietnam we had the intention of combating agression toward innocent countries. During the Cold War we were combating what really was an "evil empire", although I would say that our support of anti-communist dictatorships was wrong we did intend on doing the "right" thing.
By the way the reason why Osama bin Laden is out to get us is because we "occupied" the "holy land." Despite the fact that we stationed troops in Saudi Arabia to protect it bin Laden couldn't stand infidels being in the land of the prophet. Other things like our support of Israel doesn't help either but it really was sparked after Gulf War.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I have trouble with is this. Saddam Hussein was an evil man. No one disputes this fact, however a lot of Americans seem to support his continued rule. The man has proven himself a threat to his own people, a region, and the world. I understand the idea of national sovreignty, however if a nation won't help itself, someone else has too.
By the way I think Sopwith should start making US foreign policy. He nailed it.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is Al Qaeda also entitled to "help the United States out" by taking out Bush, if they believe he is as evil as we believe Saddam is? (Which they certainly do.)
posted
The problem with the "Saddam is evil" argument is the fact that we really don't seem to have a clear policy or strategy defining when and where we will use force against corrupt foreign governments for the sake of their people. Saddam was attacked primarily because he seemed to pose a danger to America, and now that people are debunking many of the claims of danger, an increasing number of us are falling back to the "Saddam is evil" argument.
Now, I don't think it's necessarily a bad policy in general to try and improve conditions in the world by taking down oppressors and building democracies. But if that is our policy, we need to codify and define it as a new national "doctrine" so there can be no quibbling about it.
If it's not our policy, then we need to show a different justification for the war in Iraq. I'm not saying there ISN'T one — in fact, I still think there IS. But the "Saddam is evil" justification doesn't work so long as this is an isolated case.
Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hussein is a terrible ruler, a villian and an evil man.
However, if the reason the US went in and destroyed him was because of these evin tendancies, then why didn't we invade Liberia when the mass murdering Taylor was in control? Why don't we invade North Korea right now? The woman bashing Taliban of Afghanistan were taken out. Now do we move onto Saudi Arabia?
There are some liberal countries that see Capital Punishment as an evil. Does that give them the right to invade the US? (Texas?)
There are other murderous leaders in control of countries around the world. Do we have the obligation and the right to kill them or to invade thier countries?
Actually I have no problem with our removal of Hussein. What I complain about is the Pea & Shell approach that our government and its backers use to defend it.
They say, "We invaded Iraq to stop terrorism." When critics argue that there is no connection they respond, "Maybe, but Sadaam was Evil. He had to go." When critics respond about other evil dictators, and other arguments against such a motive, they do not defend this Good Guy scenario. They respond with, "Sadaam had WMD and was working on NUCLEAR BOMBS!!" When critics respond that the evidence of Nuclear Bombs is either fake or non-existant the do not argue that point. They respond with, "We are fighting terrorists."
Its a circle that always avoids answering the charges of wrong information with new explanations.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
To back Ryan up a bit, though, the difference really is that we're right about their government, and they're wrong about ours. I know that's not the most PC or multiculturalist thing to say, but it's true. George Bush cannot do in America what Saddam has done in Iraq, period. Even if he wanted to, our time-honored system and culture prevents it. American-style democracy has its problems, but it works, and it leads to prosperity and security for its people.
I'm not saying America is immune to the problems that Iraq has recently had, but it would take some serious changes or calamities before such problems would be possible. Iraq has simply lived with violence, oppression, fear of the government, rule by force, poverty and starvation, etc, for decades as though it were completely normal. Our message to the world really ought to be that such things are NOT normal anymore. There is a way to rule a generally prosperous and happy nation without beating down most of your populous. And now that such nations exist, EVERYONE deserves to live in one.
I don't think Saddam's supporters or Al Qaeda can make the same argument, convincingly, to Americans. They cannot convince anyone that the world would be better off under a corrupt, violent Muslim theocracy because the countries where such a government has been tried are totally miserable. America, despite its problems, still has a few things to be proud of.
And seriously. Bush has some really vitriolic enemies, sure. But he's not a despot. He isn't Stalin or Hitler, okay? Can people disagree with him and dislike him without having to accuse him of being Pol Pot?
Posts: 2048 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Our country doesn't have the tendency to do what is "right" but what will garner more or retain power and wealth.
Is there any country on the planet that *doesn't* is different? Show me a country that doesn't act in its own interests a large majority of the time, and I'll show you a country that doesn't exist any more.
A country could not do any good at all if it didn't pursue policies that it thought would help it garner the power to affect the world and gain it the financial ability to exercise power.
We can argue all day about what constitues the right form to exercise that power, but no nation ever works to decrease its power and affluence. That may be what happens, due to poor judgement or application of its policies, but you can't tell me that any nation on the globe will not work to increase its own economy and power, even ahead of "doing the right thing."
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, let me rephrase. The US has a tendency to do what is our own best interests, even at the expense of others. (And actually, we occasionally will cut off our nose to spite our face, in that sometimes doing the "right" thing would be economically advantageous, but that advantage might take years to be realized, so we will do the wrong thing, or ignore it and hope it goes away, but do so at our own long-term peril.)
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The difference is that Bush isn't known for killing his own people. Hussein is universally acknowledged as evil.
Hussein is not universally acknowledged as evil. In fact, in many Muslim nations he is more popular than Bush.
And although Bush is not known for killing his own people (except those in the military), he IS known for doing a whole bunch of other things that many people (particularly those in Al Qaeda) consider more evil than killing one's own people. What you are saying is that the difference is that you are right about what is evil and they are wrong. How is Al Qaeda going to respond to that? The same thing we are saying! "Pfft. You Americans don't know what is evil and what isn't. And since you don't, we'll do you the favor of deciding and acting for you."
quote:I don't think Saddam's supporters or Al Qaeda can make the same argument, convincingly, to Americans. They cannot convince anyone that the world would be better off under a corrupt, violent Muslim theocracy because the countries where such a government has been tried are totally miserable. America, despite its problems, still has a few things to be proud of.
Yes, members of Al Qaeda are not going to be convinced of your argument that America is somewhat good any more than we will be convinced of ours.
The issue is, can group A decide what's best for group B? Your answers seems to be that, we can decide what's best for them but they can't decide what's best for us, because we are right and they are wrong. Problem is, if that argument is valid, they will use it in exactly the opposite way to justify whatever they want, because they think they are right and we are wrong. It's not a matter of PC-ness at all. It's a matter of perspective, and how the same argument, if valid, will be used by someone with different beliefs.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I'm just curious.
