Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: the white man's burden [Re: Redstorm]
    #7999382 - 02/09/08 08:30 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Redstorm writes:

Quote:

Democracy is the greatest system in the world, but that does not mean we should force it upon other countries.




We are not obligated to, no. But in the case of certain countries, we (and any other free countries) most certainly have the right to.

Quote:

Democracy best runs when the social, cultural, and economic institutions are in place before the adoption of democracy.




Correct. But that begs the question of whether a democracy running at less than its theoretical best is a better alternative than (for example) a totalitarian and genocidal slave pen. Don't let "perfect" get in the way of "vastly better".

Quote:

Germany had violated the sovereignty of numerous countries, who requested help from the United States.




And the Taliban had violated the sovereignty of Afghanistan. Hussein had violated the sovereignty of Iraq. Did Vichy France request the aid of the Allies? No, it did not. Did the governor of Poland request the aid of the Allies? No he did not.

Quote:

This is far different from invading a country and introducing democracy down the barrel of a gun.




You are confused as to which entities have the moral legitimacy to request outside assistance.



Phred


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleLuddite
I watch Fox News
 User Gallery

Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
Re: the white man's burden [Re: Phred]
    #7999557 - 02/09/08 10:08 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVirus_with_Shoes
Pastor of Muppets
Male User Gallery


Registered: 01/25/07
Posts: 3,707
Loc: Zuid-Holland, Nederland
Re: the white man's burden [Re: Phred]
    #7999772 - 02/09/08 11:39 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:


Quote:
If you'd read my post a little more carefully you would have seen that my problem is not with Western democracy but with the effort to install it in other countries that have not invited us.

Examples of such countries, please.




Here are a few greatest hits of the US attempts to build a nation and not being welcomed with open arms: Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Haiti. There are in fact hundreds of more examples of the US doing this and in many of these examples the US actually helped overthrow a democratically elected government in order to install a US-friendly, business-friendly tyrant.

Quote:

Quote:
In international law they call that 'sovereignty' and it's a concept that should be more closely respected.

So you hold the same opinion as the United Nations -- once any random thug (or group of thugs) has managed to murder his way to the top of the food chain in some country somewhere, enslaving the populace (Tibet, North Korea, Cuba, Afghanistan) and murdering them by the hundreds of thousands (Iraq), or even starting genocidal programs (the Balkans, Darfur, Congo) the rest of the world must sit back and do nothing.




In short, yes. We haven't been invading the countries we've been invading out of an altruistic desire to help their enslaved peoples. We've always had an ulterior geopolitical or economic objective, in any case you can bring to mind.

So according to your argument we should invade Sudan, North Korea, Cuba, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iran and several of the former Soviet Socialist Republics? That's preposterous... where would you like to get this money from? Let's throw another few hundred thousand American soldiers into the meat grinder while we're at it. Unless these states pose a security threat to their neighbours or other states, we should leave them to their own devices, because quite frankly, the US military sucks at nation-building. Let's also not forget that the US has a track record of installing some of these murderous thugs in power so we hardly have the credibility to be doing this and have the world think we're acting out of generosity.

Quote:

Quote:
Our effort to export our institutions because we think we know what's best for another country is exactly the type of arrogance that resonates in that ol' Rudyard Kipling poem, "The White Man's Burden."

Would the world be a better place if every country in it were to adopt the Western version of governance? Yes or no?




Yes, I've already told you my position on Western democracies and that I think it is the most stable, successful system however, you are missing the point. It's a terrible idea to go around the world trying to turn every state into a Western democracy by invading them and using force to change them. Not only is it a bad idea but it is a stupid and dangerous idea. My question to you: how would you propose bringing Western democracy to the other nations? Are you willing to send a few more hundred thousand Americans to their graves? How about an unwinnable series of wars that would last for hundreds of years and bankrupt the country?


Edited by Virus_with_Shoes (02/09/08 12:19 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinegluke bastid
Stinky Bum
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/20/00
Posts: 3,322
Loc: Charm City
Last seen: 5 years, 3 months
Re: the white man's burden [Re: Phred]
    #7999778 - 02/09/08 11:42 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
gluke_bastid writes:

Quote:

Does the totalitarian state of North Korea provide any sort of evidence that would suggest an invasion by a democracy would create a democracy?




Did the imperial feudal state of Japan provide any sort of evidence that would suggest an invasion by a democracy would create a democracy?




Nope. But when they decided to bomb our navy and entered into an alliance with other facist nations intent on invading the world, they didn't give us much of a choice. We had to defend our democracy and the logical path to victory was to depose their government.

Quote:

How much evidence was there that the Afghanis and Iraqis would embrace a democratic form of government? Yet both did. Judging from their voter turnouts, more enthusiastically than the average American does.




It is great that so many Iraqis have come out to vote. As I pointed out before, many many civilians in an invaded country are going to be excited about what the invading army offers and brings. However, if the will of a people and the majority of support for democracy is smaller than the ability of an armed and organized counter-democratic force to assume control and suppress those who are voting, you don't really have a democracy. The voters of Iraq are good people, and are stuck between an occupying force and an insurgency, both hell bent on telling them what is best for them. Iraq is light years away from a stable democracy.

Quote:

Morality. Note that "right" is not synonymous with "obligation".




So you're telling me that the US has a moral obligation to bring a similar style of government to other countries? I agree with you that we have a pretty great system that allows people a lot of freedom, but I don't agree with you that we are morally obliged to assert dominance over other nations. You are on very slippery ground when you base your foreign affairs on the same ground as Jihadists, who are morally obliged to bring us to Allah. How can you be so sure there is a difference between them and us if you are basing your argument on the same grounds that they are? I'm speaking on theoretical grounds here.

Quote:

Doesn't that go against the very idea of democracy and itself?

Nope.




Sure it does, as long as you believe that democracy is the rule of the people.

Quote:

If by "democracy" you refer to the system of governance currently practiced by the Western nations, and not Democracy in it's purest sense of majority rule trumps all, then the benefits of having as many countries as possible adopt that type of governance are apparent -- the most obvious benefit being that such countries do not start wars with one another.




First of all, I do believe in democracy. Vehemently. Rule of the people trumps all. It is the only way to keep power in check. Nothing else has ever worked, and as far as I can tell nothing else will. It keeps the state in check, it keeps corporations in check, it keeps schools in check. Everything. It is not the military victories of the 20th century that have put America and Europe where they are now. It is the triumph of democracy itself, the success of liberty and civil rights. The desire of people to rule themselves and support governments that allow them to do so.

Secondly, you are again basing your logic on easily shaken grounds. Jihadists also want to see a world government...of theocratic fundamentalism. Under that, there would also be no wars between countries. Had Hitler succeeded, there would be no wars. Had Alexander the great succeeded, there would have been one world empire with no wars. See where I am going?

The answer as to how to create a stable, sovereign democracy and how to create a peaceful global international community are one and the same: Revolution. Imperialism has failed to succeed for millenia. Revolution has succeeded where imperialism has failed and we have seen in the past that it is infectious.


Quote:

Offhand I can't think of a country whose old government was ousted forcefully by a Western nation or nations, and a democratic form of government set up, where that government subsequently collapsed. But that may be a memory lapse on my part. I'm not as young as I once was. I'm sure you'll be able to provide us several examples, though.




That's because forcefully ousting a country's government and "setting up a democracy" doesn't really work. I consider Afganistan and Iraq failures, because how are they sovereign democracies if our troops are there? India was not a democracy until it revolted against Britain after 100 years of occupation, so there's a good example of how the occupying "democracy" was holding back an actual democracy. There are more examples of this in Africa than I can think of but include Mozambique, Algeria and arguably, South Africa, as only recently was there a succesful revolution against apartheid.

Quote:

Oh, please. The US lacks socialized medicine because its freely elected Congress has decided not to enact the legislation required to set it up, not because the people of the US are being oppressed.There is a gigantic difference between the very paradigm of governance in place in a country (freedom vs totalitarianism, for example) and the level of services that government chooses to provide its citizens. Try again.




I don't have time to respond to this right now, but I find it interesting.





Phred




--------------------
:hst:
Society in every form is a blessing,
but government at its best is but a necessary evil
 
- Thomas Paine


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: the white man's burden [Re: Virus_with_Shoes]
    #8000028 - 02/09/08 12:53 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Virus_with_Shoes writes:

Quote:

Here are a few greatest hits of the US attempts to build a nation and not being welcomed with open arms: Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Haiti.




Somalia was a UN operation, not a US operation. The US never invaded Haiti in order to install democracy. The invasion of Afghanistan was likewise not a US operation, but a NATO operation with UN approval, where the people of Afghanistan (as opposed to their illegitimate "masters") did in fact welcome the removal of their oppressors, then did in fact elect themselves a democratic government. Same with Iraq -- the Iraqis did in fact embrace democracy. Surely you remember the criticisms that the problem wasn't that free elections weren't being arranged in Iraq, but that they were taking too long to be arranged.

Once again, I ask you to provide examples of efforts to install the Western form of governance in countries who hadn't invited us.

Quote:

In short, yes.




So once a murdering little thug like Idi Amin or Saddam Hussein claws his way to the top, no other nation may rightfully come to the aid of the people within the borders of the country (or countries -- see Kuwait) he has stolen? His legitimacy as "sovereign" depends solely on the fact that he holds the reigns of power regardless of how he seized them and regardless of what he does with them?

This view is just another of the many many reasons why the United Nations is such a laughably bogus organization.

Quote:

So according to your argument we should invade Sudan, North Korea, Cuba, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iran and several of the former Soviet Socialist Republics?




I have stressed several times now in this thread, and many times in past threads I know you have read, that we (free nations) have the right to invade such totalitarian cesspits as North Korea but not the obligation. I fail to understand the difficulty you are having grasping the difference between "right" and "obligation". I really don't know what more I can say to help clarify the difference for you.

Quote:

Unless these states pose a security threat to their neighbours or other states, we should leave them to their own devices, because quite frankly, the US military sucks at nation-building.




Why the caveat that these countries pose a threat to their neighbors? Who determines whether they do or not? And what makes the lives of the "neighbors" more sacrosanct than the lives of the people within that country's borders? Why is it unacceptable to intervene when the government of Sudan slaughters hundreds of thousands of its constituents, but acceptable to intervene when it starts slaughtering the constituents of Chad?

Quote:

Let's also not forget that the US has a track record of installing some of these murderous thugs in power so we hardly have the credibility to be doing this and have the world think we're acting out of generosity.




Pretending for the sake of argument that this is true (and it isn't, but let's pretend) then isn't the moral thing to do to clean up our mess? To man up and de-install the murderous thug?

Quote:

My question to you: how would you propose bringing Western democracy to the other nations?




To the ones which pose a threat to the US? Invade them, depose their governments, set up a Western form of governance. To the ones which don't pose a threat to the US? Not my problem. The citizens of those countries are on their own. I wish them the best of luck, but hey... shit happens. The US had no business intervening in the whole Yugoslavian mess. Serbia and Kosovo and all the rest of them posed no threat to the US. That was Europe's problem, not the US's or even the UN's.



Phred


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 3 months, 10 days
Re: the white man's burden [Re: Phred]
    #8000049 - 02/09/08 12:59 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

To the ones which pose a threat to the US? Invade them, depose their governments, set up a Western form of governance.




Other than Japan, I'm still waiting for an instance of this definition to occur.

If we are to start, I'd think Saudi Arabia would be a good place.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: the white man's burden [Re: gluke bastid]
    #8000209 - 02/09/08 01:43 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

gluke_bastid writes:

Quote:

We had to defend our democracy and the logical path to victory was to depose their government.




So despite the fact there was no indication to think Western democracy would "take" with a people possessed of deeply-held traditions centuries old of submission to the elite (samurai class) and complete and instantaneous obedience to the Emperor, the Japanese took to Western democracy like fish to water. Why do you believe the North Koreans would not likewise do so? Their neighbors to the South certainly show no difficulty in embracing it.

Quote:

However, if the will of a people and the majority of support for democracy is smaller than the ability of an armed and organized counter-democratic force to assume control and suppress those who are voting, you don't really have a democracy.




But in Iraq, that didn't happen. The voters (three times now) defied the 'splodeydopes and turned out in very large percentages to vote.

Quote:

The voters of Iraq are good people, and are stuck between an occupying force and an insurgency, both hell bent on telling them what is best for them. Iraq is light years away from a stable democracy.




So England during the Irish troubles wasn't a stable democracy? Israel is not a stable democracy? Your way of looking at things is skewed as hell. Iraq is a stable (albeit not particularly strong from a security standpoint as of today) democracy being attacked by folks who don't want it to be a stable democracy. Those people are being eliminated steadily.

Quote:

So you're telling me that the US has a moral obligation to bring a similar style of government to other countries?




Good grief! *smacks forehead* No, I have said over and over and over that the US has the right but not the obligation. Remember these quotes from this thread alone? --

"Note that I don't say the Western countries or any countries at all have the obligation to come to their aid -- it is perfectly acceptable to me to sit on our hands and do nothing." -- post 799921

"We are not obligated to, no. But in the case of certain countries, we (and any other free countries) most certainly have the right to."-- post 7999382

Quote:

I agree with you that we have a pretty great system that allows people a lot of freedom, but I don't agree with you that we are morally obliged to assert dominance over other nations.




We are not morally obliged to. We have the right to, but not the obligation to.

Quote:

Sure it does, as long as you believe that democracy is the rule of the people.




No it doesn't, especially if you believe democracy is the rule of the people. Was Iraq being run by the rule of the Iraqi people? Nope. Was Afghanistan being run by the rule of the Afghani people? Nope. Iraq was being run by a murderous thug with no right whatsoever to hold the reigns of power. Afghanistan had been hijacked by a bunch of religious nutbars from Pakistan. Afghanistan's "government" in 2001 was recognized as the legitimate government of that poor country by exactly three countries in the world: one of which -- Pakistan -- wanted also to withdraw its recognition of legitimacy but was persuaded not to in order that a diplomatic channel could be kept open.

Quote:

First of all, I do believe in democracy. Vehemently. Rule of the people trumps all.




Interesting admission. So you would have been just fine with that whole slavery business had you lived a hundred and fifty years ago. And you're okay with marijuana and mushrooms being illegal, and with gays not being allowed to marry each other. Okey dokey, then.

Quote:

Jihadists also want to see a world government...of theocratic fundamentalism.




But I don't want to see a world government. I merely point out (to your agreement) that the world would be a far more enjoyable place if all countries adopted the Western model of governance. I'm not saying there should be one big government. I'm content with 190 or so separate governments, so long as each they respect individual human rights.

Quote:

The answer as to how to create a stable, sovereign democracy and how to create a peaceful global international community are one and the same: Revolution. Imperialism has failed to succeed for millenia. Revolution has succeeded where imperialism has failed and we have seen in the past that it is infectious.




Revolution is "the" answer? Hardly. The result of most revolutions is continuing revolution. See the history of France as just one example. Or hell, toss a dart over your shoulder at a map of South America.

On the other hand, Japan's forced democracy stuck the first time. So did Germany's (remember, we are speaking of the Western form of democracy we know today, not Hitler's fascist "democratic" Thousand Year Reich). Germany's democratic government wasn't installed as a result of imperialism practiced by those who installed it. When the German government was on its feet, the Allies went home. Well, the USSR didn't, but you know what I mean. When the Japanese government was on its feet, those who had forced democracy on Japan went home. They'll go home in Afghanistan one day, too, and in Iraq.

Quote:

That's because forcefully ousting a country's government and "setting up a democracy" doesn't really work.




Except in Japan and Germany and Afghanistan and Iraq and the Balkans, apparently.

Quote:

I consider Afganistan and Iraq failures, because how are they sovereign democracies if our troops are there?




So much for Ireland during "the troubles" then. For that matter, so much for France of today -- see the hundred or so cars burned every single night of the year, and the hundreds of sectors of France designated by the French government as "no-go" zones: zones too lawless for even police to patrol. Was Ireland a sovereign democracy? Is France a sovereign democracy?

Iraq and Afghanistan are in fact as much sovereign democracies as Ireland was or France is, they're just sovereign democracies under attack by folks who don't want them to remain sovereign democracies. At the moment the governments of those countries do not possess security forces strong enough to provide reasonable levels of security for their citizens, but that need not be a permanent state of affairs.



Phred


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVirus_with_Shoes
Pastor of Muppets
Male User Gallery


Registered: 01/25/07
Posts: 3,707
Loc: Zuid-Holland, Nederland
Re: the white man's burden [Re: Redstorm]
    #8000284 - 02/09/08 02:01 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Somalia was a UN operation, not a US operation. The US never invaded Haiti in order to install democracy. The invasion of Afghanistan was likewise not a US operation, but a NATO operation with UN approval, where the people of Afghanistan (as opposed to their illegitimate "masters") did in fact welcome the removal of their oppressors, then did in fact elect themselves a democratic government. Same with Iraq -- the Iraqis did in fact embrace democracy. Surely you remember the criticisms that the problem wasn't that free elections weren't being arranged in Iraq, but that they were taking too long to be arranged.

Once again, I ask you to provide examples of efforts to install the Western form of governance in countries who hadn't invited us.




I've already given you plenty of examples. Of the ones I have given you so far, some of them have been under the banner of the UN but the forces involved have been overwhelming US. The US has spearheaded all of these interventions both in the UN Security Council and in actual military execution.

Your claim that the US never invaded Haiti to attempt to install democracy is simply not true. In 1994, the US carried out a mission to attempt reinstall a democratic government after a military junta had taken the reigns of the country. Guess what the name of this operation was? OPERATION UPHOLD DEMOCRACY!

As for Iraq, the burden of proof is on you to show that we were somehow invited in to their country. Invited by whom? They embraced democracy? Hardly. The Shiites embraced the US deposing the Sunni leader Saddam and then the entire country lapsed into anarchistic chaos, not democracy. Sure an election or two was had and this was a good sign but the country has not held a trajectory towards a stable democracy since.

Quote:

So once a murdering little thug like Idi Amin or Saddam Hussein claws his way to the top, no other nation may rightfully come to the aid of the people within the borders of the country (or countries -- see Kuwait) he has stolen?




Yes, that's right. No other country may "rightfully" invade that country, regardless of how much of a repressive, evil regime it is. It is a violation of international law, just like the Iraq War was. Unless that state has invaded another state or violated its sovereignty then no country has the "right" to invade. Once Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, he violated the sovereignty of another nation which is why the Gulf War was justified. When that line is crossed it becomes an international issue and intervention is legal and justified. It's called international law...look into it.

Quote:

it [invading Hitler's Europe and Iraq] was a waste of taxpayers money and of American lives... to go after a bad actor who was no threat to the US.




We are in agreement about Iraq but not about Hitler's Europe. You're neglecting the fact that the US did not initiate war with Germany, it was BROUGHT to the US by Japan attacking Pearl Harbour and because of the Axis alliances, the US was brought into war with Germany.

Quote:

Pretending for the sake of argument that this [US installing dictators] is true (and it isn't, but let's pretend) then isn't the moral thing to do to clean up our mess? To man up and de-install the murderous thug?




Please read some history. This is historical fact and it is not up for debate that the United States, either with its military or CIA-led coups have done this all over the world. Here is a very brief list of some of these thugs the United States installed:

General Augusto Pinochet (Chile, 1973)- 3000 murdered
General Jorge Rafael Videla (Argentina, 1976)- 30,000 murdered
Suharto (Indonesia, 1965)- 500,000 murdered
...and the best for last...SADDAM HUSSEIN!

Check it out! Rumsfeld's just gave Saddam the keys to the city of Detroit!

Damn, how times have changed.

Man up and remove these murderous thugs? I've got news for you Phred. We put them there and keep them there on purpose! We have no interest in removing them unless they stop working in our interest or do something crazy like nationalise foreign oil (see the Iran coup of 1953).

Quote:

I have stressed several times now in this thread, and many times in past threads I know you have read, that we (free nations) have the right to invade such totalitarian cesspits as North Korea but not the obligation.




You may have stressed this in past threads but that doesn't make it any more correct.


Edited by Virus_with_Shoes (02/09/08 02:41 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: the white man's burden [Re: Virus_with_Shoes]
    #8000494 - 02/09/08 02:49 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

The US did not nor could it ever have "installed" any of those thugs. Your notion of American omnipotence in these matters is stunningly childish.

Which is it? Do you want us all over the place taking out thugs? Or don't you? Should we just do the turtle and have nothing to do with any other nation at all? If not, will you please submit a list of approved regimes so that I can point out how they have been rather thuggish themselves.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: the white man's burden [Re: Virus_with_Shoes]
    #8000508 - 02/09/08 02:53 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Virus writes:

Quote:

I've already given you plenty of examples.




You have given me examples, but not examples of what I asked for.

Quote:

Your claim that the US never invaded Haiti to attempt to install democracy is simply uninformed. In 1994, the US carried out a mission to attempt reinstall a democratic government after a military junta had taken the reigns of the country. Guess what the name of this operation was? OPERATION UPHOLD DEMOCRACY!




I am well aware of that operation. As you may already know, I live right next door to Haiti, in the Dominican Republic, and I'm willing to wager a very large sum of money I know more about Haitian history -- especially Haitian history since the time I arrived in the DR two decades ago -- than any other regular poster to this forum.

So many things wrong with your example of Haiti. First of all, the operation to which you refer wasn't to force democracy on Haiti. Democracy had already been established in Haiti, it's just that the democratically elected head of the Haitian government had been ousted by a military coup. The man was a stone loony, but that's another story. The more critical error you make is in asserting the US invaded Haiti in 1994. They didn't. Operation Uphold Democracy was completed through diplomatic methods, not miltary ones. No invasion.

Quote:

As for Iraq, the burden of proof is on you to show that we were somehow invited in to their country. Invited by whom?




By the Iraqis foolish enough to have taken GHW Bush at his word in 1991. Or rather, by the surviving members of that group not murdered by Hussein. As well, members of Ba'athist opposition groups and Iraqi exiles.




Quote:

They embraced democracy? Hardly.




They surely did embrace democracy. Two elections and a nationwide referendum in less than three years -- all scrupulously democratic, all with high turnout, all in the face of credible threats of extreme violence. American voters feel "disenfranchised" if the lineups at the polling stations leave them standing in the rain for more than fifteen minutes. Iraqi voters face the very real threat of being blown up by the figure in the Burqa behind them in line. Or kidnapped and tortured by some Yemeni fanatic who slipped across the border from Syria before the indelible purple ink which marks them as a target for days can fade to the point of inconspicuousness. Anyone who claims people eager to vote under these conditions are not people who embrace democracy is someone who cannot be taken seriously.

Quote:

Yes, that's right. No other country may "rightfully" invade that country, regardless of how much of a repressive, evil regime it is. It is a violation of international law, just like the Iraq War was. Unless that state has invaded another state or violated its sovereignty then no country has the "right" to invade. Once Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, he violated the sovereignty of another nation which is why the Gulf War was justified. When that line is crossed it becomes an international issue and intervention is legal and justified. It's called international law...look into it.




I already told you I was aware your position is the same as that of the UN. I merely point out how absurd a position it is.

Quote:

You're neglecting the fact that the US did not initiate war with Germany, it was BROUGHT to the US by Japan attacking Pearl Harbour and because of the Axis alliances, the US was brought into war with Germany.





It was correct for the US to go to war with Japan. Japan had already demonstrated itself to be a threat to the US. Germany, however, was no threat to the US. Hitler reluctantly made a pro forma declaration of war on the US because if he did not he would have lost Japan as his ally, something he most definitely did not want to see. But Hitler had neither the inclination nor the ability to actually attack the US. Just because someone declares war on you doesn't mean you have to invade the countries he has captured.

I have covered this thoroughly in past threads. If you want to continue this tangent, go ahead and bump one of those threads. I'll happily pursue it there.

Quote:

General Augusto Pinochet (Chile, 1973)- 3000 murdered
General Jorge Rafael Videla (Argentina, 1976)- 30,000 murdered
Suharto (Indonesia, 1965)- 500,000 murdered
...and the best for last...SADDAM HUSSEIN!




Videla wasn't installed by the US or by the CIA. Neither was Suharto, and certainly Hussein wasn't. I don't know why you are trotting out these tired old canards. It weakens the tiny argument you have. I will concede that there was CIA involvement in Pinochet's rise to power, but claiming he was "installed" by the US is an exaggeration.




Phred


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineRedstorm
Prince of Bugs
Male


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 3 months, 10 days
Re: the white man's burden [Re: Phred]
    #8000525 - 02/09/08 02:57 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Afghanistan and Iraq are not yet viable sovereign democracies because there is no sign that they would last if we left. It's a little early to be calling for cries of total success when we are propping the democracy up. If we leave and they can continue to uphold the rule of law while protecting individual rights, I will whole-heartedly agree with you.


Edited by Redstorm (02/09/08 03:03 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: the white man's burden [Re: Redstorm]
    #8000564 - 02/09/08 03:07 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

Afghanistan and Iraq are not yet viable sovereign democracies because there is no sign that they would last if we left.




In the case of Afghanistan, big whoop. The country has never been under a single "sovereign" government in all its recorded history, probably. There are few people more fractious than Afghanis. There's always tribes fighting tribes, warlords fighting warlords. And yeah... the Taliban might retreat into Pakistan, rebuild itself, then surge into Afghanistan again and take down the Afghani government. That doesn't make it any less of a government than Norway's government was in the Forties.

Quote:

It's a little early to be calling for cries of total success when we are propping the democracy up.




But that's just it -- we aren't propping "democracy" up. The 'splodeydopes aren't storming government buildings or army barracks or capturing radio stations and television studios. They're mostly self-detonating in bazaars, and occasionally blowing up a pipeline or electrical transmission line. The Iraqi people support their government.

Quote:

If we leave and they can continue to uphold the rule of law while protecting individual rights, I will whole-heatedly agree with you.




Uphold it as successfully as whom? As France? As England/Ireland during the troubles? As Israel today?




Phred


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVirus_with_Shoes
Pastor of Muppets
Male User Gallery


Registered: 01/25/07
Posts: 3,707
Loc: Zuid-Holland, Nederland
Re: the white man's burden [Re: zappaisgod]
    #8000590 - 02/09/08 03:19 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

The US did not nor could it ever have "installed" any of those thugs. Your notion of American omnipotence in these matters is stunningly childish.




Resort to ad hominem attacks and call people childish when you disagree with them... great tactic. By no means refute me with evidence, god forbid.

US complicity in these coups is on record and documented. Get off your ass and do some reading.

Project FUBELT, more commonly known as Track II, was declassified by the government in 1998 and shows a concerted effort by the US government to depose Salvador Allende's government and to prop up Augusto Pinochet.

http://www.gwu.edu/%7Ensarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch05-01.htm

Within those pages you'll some pretty lurid stuff, including handwritten notes by CIA director Richard Helms recording the orders of president Nixon to foster a coup in Chile.

This is just one example but all of the coups I have referenced are well-documented and on the record. We've even been chastised by the International Court of Justice in the Hague for "unlawful use of force" and violating Nicaragua's sovereignty during the 1980s when we propped up the Contras.

Quote:

Which is it? Do you want us all over the place taking out thugs? Or don't you? Should we just do the turtle and have nothing to do with any other nation at all? If not, will you please submit a list of approved regimes so that I can point out how they have been rather thuggish themselves.





When have I ever said that we should be all over the world taking out thugs? I'll tell you when...never. These are not my words and must be those of some imagined straw man. Kick his ass for me when you get the chance. "Do the turtle and have nothing to do with any other nation at all?" Hmmm...haven't said this either. Beat that straw man!  :rolleyes:

We should be engaging in trade and diplomatic relations with countries. There's more to international relations than invading other countries and it's discouraging that you don't see that. The only countries we should be fighting are those that pose an imminent security threat to us. Point one out for me if you please.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: the white man's burden [Re: Virus_with_Shoes]
    #8000622 - 02/09/08 03:30 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

You cite several examples wherein the US government has acted to assist one faction against another. Sometimes they succeed in helping that faction attain power. Sometimes they don't. The idea that that constitutes an "installation" by the US government is semantically incorrect. The idea that the US government is capable of doing that through clandestine means is childish. Describing an idea held by you to be childish does not constitute an ad hominem attack. Grow up.

Just answer the questions. Your high dudgeon is pointless.

Isn't engaging in relations with thug governments support for that group of thugs? Wouldn't that be considered a "propping up" and a legitimizing of the thugs? That seems to be a common corrolary of those who think the CIA installed a certain thug.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVirus_with_Shoes
Pastor of Muppets
Male User Gallery


Registered: 01/25/07
Posts: 3,707
Loc: Zuid-Holland, Nederland
Re: the white man's burden [Re: Virus_with_Shoes]
    #8000668 - 02/09/08 03:40 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

I already told you I was aware your position is the same as that of the UN. I merely point out how absurd a position it is.




We disagree. I'll support sovereignty and the rights of nations while you continue to support neoconservative, imperialistic policies.

I'm still a bit confused about your position on foreign interventions. You mention a country having the right but not the obligation to depose a foreign dictator that has not invaded other countries. In what situation do you believe a coup or invasion should be carried out and from where does this "right" derive?


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


Edited by Virus_with_Shoes (02/09/08 05:06 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVirus_with_Shoes
Pastor of Muppets
Male User Gallery


Registered: 01/25/07
Posts: 3,707
Loc: Zuid-Holland, Nederland
Re: the white man's burden [Re: Virus_with_Shoes]
    #8000835 - 02/09/08 04:14 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Quote:

zappaisgod said:
You cite several examples wherein the US government has acted to assist one faction against another. Sometimes they succeed in helping that faction attain power. Sometimes they don't. The idea that that constitutes an "installation" by the US government is semantically incorrect. The idea that the US government is capable of doing that through clandestine means is childish. Describing an idea held by you to be childish does not constitute an ad hominem attack. Grow up.

Just answer the questions. Your high dudgeon is pointless.

Isn't engaging in relations with thug governments support for that group of thugs? Wouldn't that be considered a "propping up" and a legitimizing of the thugs? That seems to be a common corrolary of those who think the CIA installed a certain thug.




Sorry, I got a bit carried away there. Normally I keep my cool but I lost it there for a second.

At any rate, maybe "installation" was too strong of a word to use but the fact still remains that via direct support (e.g. military training or supply of arms) many of these thugs came to power, where it would have not previously been possible without US support. The point I was making is that it is destructive to do this around the world with such reckless abandon as it creates blowback and instability.

I have already answered your questions. We shouldn't make it our business to go around attempting to depose thugs and again, this is not even our motivation for invading countries in the first place. It all comes down to where our economic and geopolitical interests lie. We should be trading and being diplomatic with countries that aren't a direct threat to us. This is not being a turtle.

However, in some examples where there are blatant human rights abuses but no countries have been invaded other tactics such as trade embargoes and refusing diplomatic recognition make more sense. There are other routes than military invasion or intervention. Where you are misunderstanding me is that you seem to think that just because I am not in favour of invading countries means that I think we should befriend rogue states with terrible human rights violations. Not saying that at all.

Although in practice we tend to befriend human rights violators, especially if there are economic interests at stake. The US has kept normal relations with Saudi Arabia and China for this very reason.

What do you think our policy should be in the world? That of nation-building or non-interventionist?


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


Edited by Virus_with_Shoes (02/09/08 05:08 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
Re: the white man's burden [Re: Virus_with_Shoes]
    #8001361 - 02/09/08 05:42 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Neither and both. We should act for our interests. Intervention can sometimes be in our interests. A close cost benefit analysis needs to be made every time and an assessment of level of interaction, engagement and, yes, interference should be included along with all repercussions.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleVirus_with_Shoes
Pastor of Muppets
Male User Gallery


Registered: 01/25/07
Posts: 3,707
Loc: Zuid-Holland, Nederland
Re: the white man's burden [Re: zappaisgod]
    #8002250 - 02/09/08 08:06 PM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Very quickly...

Quote:

Videla wasn't installed by the US or by the CIA. Neither was Suharto, and certainly Hussein wasn't. I don't know why you are trotting out these tired old canards. It weakens the tiny argument you have. I will concede that there was CIA involvement in Pinochet's rise to power, but claiming he was "installed" by the US is an exaggeration.




I'll give you and zappa that point about "installed" being too strong a word. Aided, abetted and facilitated would me more appropriate. This is semantics... the point remains but the language was perhaps too strong.

Saddam was aided into power by the CIA because he was seen as a staunch ally and virulent anti-communist. This very reason accounts for most of the dictators we helped into power and supported throughout the Cold War including the Shah of Iran.

http://www.upi.com/International_Intelligence/Analysis/2003/04/10/exclusive_saddam_key_in_early_cia_plot/6557/

Quoted from article:

"While many have thought that Saddam first became involved with U.S. intelligence agencies at the start of the September 1980 Iran-Iraq war, his first contacts with U.S. officials date back to 1959, when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with assassinating then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim."

Same deal with Suharto in Indonesia. Seen as another battle in the Cold War and the US did everything it could to prevent the country from falling into Communist hands.

Here's a pretty interesting article about it from Pacific Affairs with plenty of citations. We did in fact vastly support Suharto's rise to power and even helped the Indonesian army compile vast death lists of Communists to be executed.

http://www.namebase.org/scott.html

Videla was indirectly helped into power by US-aided Operation Condor which was a campaign of assassinations and intelligence operations aimed at the "Southern Cone" states of South America. More anti-Communist stuff...

Here's a quick summary from the Journal of Third World Studies.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3821/is_200610/ai_n17195860

Quote:

I already told you I was aware your position is the same as that of the UN. I merely point out how absurd a position it is.




I don't see the boundary you are drawing between when an intervention is and isn't justified. You say that my position is ridiculous yet you've also said that invasions of Nazi Europe and Hussein's Iraq weren't justified because these nations didn't pose a security threat to the US. This was the same argument I used for not invading Iraq yet somehow you are disagreeing with me, the only difference I see is that you are arguing from a security standpoint and I'm arguing from an international law perspective.

I see a bit of contradiction in your posts. Can you please clarify your position.


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: the white man's burden [Re: Virus_with_Shoes]
    #8003715 - 02/10/08 05:45 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Virus writes:

Quote:

We disagree. I'll support sovereignty and the rights of nations...




But that's just it. You don't support the rights of nations. You support the "rights" of whichever murderous thug has managed to claw his way to the top of the food chain, seize the reigns of power and enslave the inhabitants of the nation in question. Your position (and the UN's) when it comes to deciding who has a legitimate claim to speak for the people of a given nation is "might is right". Neither you nor the UN have a problem with entire nations being enslaved, and entire peoples being wiped out, as long as the enslavers accomplish their task from within their own borders. The enslavers need not even necessarily be citizens of the nation in question: all that matters to you is that they first entered the nation in a non-violent fashion.

Quote:

...while you continue to support neoconservative, imperialistic policies.




Look, people would take you more seriously if you would use words the way they are meant to be used. The US is not "imperialistic" and follows no imperialistic policies. If the US does get involved in a military operation in another country, it comes, does the job, then leaves. Empires don't do this. Is Japan a colony or vassal state of the US? Nope. How about Germany? Nope. Kosovo? South Korea? Afghanistan? Iraq? Panama? No, no, no, no and no.

Quote:

In what situation do you believe a coup or invasion should be carried out and from where does this "right" derive?




What part of the following did I fail to make clear? --

"To the ones which pose a threat to the US? Invade them, depose their governments, set up a Western form of governance. To the ones which don't pose a threat to the US? Not my problem. The citizens of those countries are on their own. I wish them the best of luck, but hey... shit happens." -- post 8000028





Phred


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


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
Re: the white man's burden [Re: Virus_with_Shoes]
    #8003739 - 02/10/08 06:27 AM (15 years, 11 months ago)

Virus writes:

Quote:

You say that my position is ridiculous...




It is. Your claim is that there is no process by which the head of state achieves and maintains his status as head of state which is more legitimate than any other process. Murdering your way to the top is as legitimate as being voted into the position by the populace. As long as he proclaims to the world that he runs the show and has so terrorized everyone else in the nation that none of them will claim otherwise, you and the United Nations accept his "legitimacy".

Quote:

...yet you've also said that invasions of Nazi Europe and Hussein's Iraq weren't justified because these nations didn't pose a security threat to the US.




Hitler's Germany most certainly posed no security threat to the US, no. Only a fool would pretend otherwise. Hussein's Iraq likewise posed no direct threat in the sense of Iraq mounting an invasion of the US or lobbing missiles across the ocean to land in Miami or Galveston. But as a base from which terror operations could be launched (using either Iraqi nationals or Islamic terrorists), Iraq most certainly did pose a threat. It's just that I am not convinced yet that this level of threat was high enough to warrant a resumption of hostilities in Iraq in March of 2003 by the actors involved. While it is true that Hussein sent an assassin to murder a former US president and it is true that he offered safe haven to bin Laden and it is true he provided housing and state pensions to other terrorists who had attacked the US in the past (1993 WTC bomber, for example), it might have been better to leave him in power and just endure the occasional inconvenience every few years while waiting for an opportunity to assassinate him, hoping whoever took over Iraq after his death could be reasoned with.

Quote:

This was the same argument I used for not invading Iraq yet somehow you are disagreeing with me, the only difference I see is that you are arguing from a security standpoint and I'm arguing from an international law perspective.




No, it is not the same argument at all. You yourself see the difference. You argue that it was wrong to invade Iraq because it was "illegal" to do so (you are wrong about that, by the way -- resuming hostilities after a conditional ceasefire has remained unsatisfied for twelve years is not illegal, even under international law. But that's a discussion for another thread), I say it was a sub-optimal decision for the US to have resumed hostilities when it did for practical reasons rather than moral or legal reasons. And I have to admit that I am almost on the fence about it -- like 51% leave Hussein in power for a while longer and see what develops vs. 49% take him out in March of 2003.



Phred


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Left Coast Kratom Buy Kratom Extract   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Republic or democracy God_Killer 1,489 11 03/05/02 06:10 PM
by Agent Cooper
* The Rise of Illiberal Democracy FrenchSocialist 1,541 8 04/10/22 09:13 AM
by Brian Jones
* When Democracy Failed: The warnings of history trendalM 1,218 15 03/19/04 03:59 PM
by Anonymous
* Kasparov: Putin is destroying democracy in Russia Luddite 703 1 09/23/07 06:28 PM
by Disco Cat
* US was warned Democracy in Iraq may be "Impossible"
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Edame 6,613 79 08/19/03 08:29 AM
by GernBlanston
* Why is Israel a stable democracy and the Arab states aren't?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
RandalFlagg 4,141 103 08/24/06 07:25 PM
by downforpot
* 21 US states claiming sovereignty Visionary Tools 1,554 14 02/20/09 05:34 PM
by zouden
* The United States is NOT Capitalist...
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
trendalM 16,626 133 09/28/09 11:34 AM
by Phred

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
3,821 topic views. 2 members, 2 guests and 0 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.028 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 15 queries.