NationStates Jolt Archive

Now, hold your horses, kids. Step away from partisan bickering for a moment and just consider recent events. I don't like the entire Bush administration, but I think it's both wise and necessary to evaluate whether or not his foreign policy was/is/will be successful. There have been several threads on this board [recently, anyhow] about democracy in the middle east. Folks have been hashing it out as to whether or not it was really successful. You can find one here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=401520) and another here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=401154&highlight=wave+hope).

For a moment, set aside your opinion of Bush's economic and domestic policies, however connected they may be, and set aside claims [true or false] that he misled America. Instead consider the current rationale for war - that is, the liberation of the Middle East from despotic rule and the introduction of true democracy to the region - and whether or not it is justified. Do the benefits outweigh the costs? Does the future look good or bad? What could the U.S. and the world at large be doing to improve the situation there? How has Bush's foreign policy bungled things up, and where has it succeeded?

I think it's an interesting queston. I don't support Bush. I very much don't support him. So it's a matter of reason and pride for me to examine my thoughts on what he's done and see whether or not I'm justified.

No. Forcing democracy on people mostly is bad.

Forcing democracy is bad. If they really deserve it, they'll revolt. Simple.

:sniper: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :gundge: <-- Those aren't smilies of Democracy, folks.

If your looking at it from a military standpoint I would think the one problem is not enough soldiers. Other than that if you fight wars in defense of national security and interests then its ok. -My opinion

I don't think it is justified. Who is Bush (or anyone else for that matter) to say how another country should be run? All it is is cultural imperialism. Think about it this way: (Ignore all military abilities) If during Nazi Germany, German invaded the U.S. and changed our government, we would be mighty pissed. That's basically what we did to them. And the argument that the Iraqi people didn't like their form of government doesn't hold water. There are millions of people in the U.S. who don't like the exact form of government we have now and would like change, but that doesn't mean we would like some tyrant to come in and take over our country.
Just my thoughts on the topic. I don't support Bush either. (but I DO support the troops!)

No. Forcing democracy on people mostly is bad.
Why is it bad? Don't you think that's a simplistic way of thinking, especially without some sort of justification?
Forcing democracy is bad. If they really deserve it, they'll revolt. Simple.
Not every country that becomes a democracy becomes one through rebellion. Britain and Canada are examples. And what about Japan and Germany? Was democracy sort of forced on them? It seems justified 50+ years later.

I don't think it is justified. Who is Bush (or anyone else for that matter) to say how another country should be run? All it is is cultural imperialism. Think about it this way: (Ignore all military abilities) If during Nazi Germany, German invaded the U.S. and changed our government, we would be mighty pissed. That's basically what we did to them. And the argument that the Iraqi people didn't like their form of government doesn't hold water. There are millions of people in the U.S. who don't like the exact form of government we have now and would like change, but that doesn't mean we would like some tyrant to come in and take over our country.
Just my thoughts on the topic. I don't support Bush either. (but I DO support the troops!)
True, we would be mighty pissed if the Germans came in and changed our government. But it can be argued that we weren't under a despotic ruler who tortured us and violated our human rights, whereas the Iraqis and Aghans were. Maybe we would desire someone to come and help us out if we found ourselves being tyrannized... kind of like we did during the Revolutionary War when we needed France to help us shake off the shackles of British colonialism.

True, we would be mighty pissed if the Germans came in and changed our government. But it can be argued that we weren't under a despotic ruler who tortured us and violated our human rights, whereas the Iraqis and Aghans were. Maybe we would desire someone to come and help us out if we found ourselves being tyrannized... kind of like we did during the Revolutionary War when we needed France to help us shake off the shackles of British colonialism.

that's not the point I'm trying to make though. The point is, even if people do want a change, it should be up to those IN that country to make the change happen. The United States should not have a say in how other governments in other countries are run. It is not their place for it. Basically, if the reason for going to war with Iraq was to bring democracy to the country (which it wasn't, but that's a different story) it is not justified because the U.S. should just learn to keep out of other country's business. It is not their place to try to change the world.

Originally Posted by Trammwerk
Not every country that becomes a democracy becomes one through rebellion. Britain and Canada are examples. And what about Japan and Germany? Was democracy sort of forced on them? It seems justified 50+ years later.
Still, one of the responsibilities of Democracy is to overthrow a corrupt leader, so therefore, shouldn't it be expected to fight for Democracy?

and just because it *seems* justified doesn't mean it is.

that's not the point I'm trying to make though. The point is, even if people do want a change, it should be up to those IN that country to make the change happen. The United States should not have a say in how other governments in other countries are run. It is not their place for it. Basically, if the reason for going to war with Iraq was to bring democracy to the country (which it wasn't, but that's a different story) it is not justified because the U.S. should just learn to keep out of other country's business. It is not their place to try to change the world.


Why not?

Yoda once said "with great power comes great responsibility". If a true situation exists where people are suffering, is it not the responsibility of the people that have the power to use that power?

Why is it bad? Don't you think that's a simplistic way of thinking, especially without some sort of justification?


I'd give you my reasons now but it would just repeat what others have already said.

Instead consider the current rationale for war - that is, the liberation of the Middle East from despotic rule and the introduction of true democracy to the region - and whether or not it is justified. Do the benefits outweigh the costs? Does the future look good or bad? What could the U.S. and the world at large be doing to improve the situation there? How has Bush's foreign policy bungled things up, and where has it succeeded?
http://hem.passagen.se/fred.i.mellanostern/bush_policy.JPG

Forcing democracy is bad. If they really deserve it, they'll revolt. Simple.

:sniper: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :gundge: <-- Those aren't smilies of Democracy, folks.

If we had the means to topple the Soviet Union long before it fell and bring Democracy to the obviously suppressed and oppressed russians would it be right ?... the fact of the matter is few if any countries have histories of democracy.. all which convert do so from oppressive dictatorships/monarchies. Societies so brutally oppressed as Iraq dont often have the oprotunity or means by which to rebel. Would we be wrong to bring democracy to the countless countries in Africa suffering from endless hunger, torture, voilence, genocide because of corruption, or civil wars? If we would.. why then are we obligated to send aid to these countries.. when it is all too often squandered and stolen by those warring factions. If stablity and peace can't be brought through democracy why then should we waste the few preciouse resources we have ?

I bet if some of you who are opposed to bush's policy were in iraq or where ever and you were beat and tortured, you would have a different opinion on the subject. i also think we are forgetting about the whole terrorism problem.
I happen to think that a war will be fought regardless of bush's policy. the only difference is the location and i would rather it be in the middle east then my backyard.

No. Forcing democracy on people mostly is bad.
Which is why I find it amusing Bush was talknig about how you can't force democracy on a people before going over and taking over Iraq

I don't think it is justified. Who is Bush (or anyone else for that matter) to say how another country should be run? All it is is cultural imperialism. Think about it this way: (Ignore all military abilities) If during Nazi Germany, German invaded the U.S. and changed our government, we would be mighty pissed. That's basically what we did to them. And the argument that the Iraqi people didn't like their form of government doesn't hold water. There are millions of people in the U.S. who don't like the exact form of government we have now and would like change, but that doesn't mean we would like some tyrant to come in and take over our country.
Just my thoughts on the topic. I don't support Bush either. (but I DO support the troops!)

the difference is... in this country your not killed for not liking the government. your allowed to express your ideas openly and freely and can choose your leaders. In Iraq your shot, hung, tortured... Same with your faimly and anyone who many know you. Kurds in the north in the swamp lands were hunted and killed because they were nomadic and "impossible to control".

How can you make a corrolation between the US being taken over by a Facist state which will inherentily restrict human rights .. and the US (seemingly liberating) the Iraqi people from a brutal dictatorship who had no respect for Human rights. And as of today Iraq is a Sovergin country who held their own elections... if they are so enthusiastic about the old regime as you suggest.. the old bathist party members could have easily been re-elected into teh government.

And simply look at the way the government was structured under saddam. 20% of the population was ruling the other 80% ?? the Majority ethnicity was treated as the minority with no say in governance or law.... and your trying to make the case that they enjoyed their old government ? HOW ?

Which is why I find it amusing Bush was talknig about how you can't force democracy on a people before going over and taking over Iraq

I can't see how empowering the populous of any nation with the power to govern themselves as intrusive or wrong ... how can you make the case ?

I can't see how empowering the populous of any nation with the power to govern themselves as intrusive or wrong ... how can you make the case ?

Because... we invaded them?

Attacking Iraq did more great harm to our security. It created an additional rallying cause and, more importantly, rallying point.

You can't impose democracy, and definetly not on a Islamic country. Man-made law is against Islamic principles. Only a democracy in which religious leaders are selected would be tolerated for any significant length of time in the Muslim world.

I'm sorry to say this, but only a secular dictatorship can control the radical Muslim movement. That is why Saddam lasted so long, and how he prevented a coup from an Iranian style movement.

As long as the middle east is primarily Muslim (forever), oppressive political leaders must be in power to keep the whole area from becoming a purely hostile, radically Islamic terrorist heaven. Religion corrupts.

First off, I'd like to know what people think democracy is. Not everyone who is a democracy is like the United States. Secondly, just because the Iraqi population has participated in one election does not make it democratic. Third, there is no guarentee that the new government in Iraq will be democratic. I don't think it's justifyable to go to war to democratize other countries. I understand why Bush did it, but that doesn't make it right. Who's to say that the Iraqi people want a democracy? I don't think the Bush Administration realized all the implications of going to war. I think he thought that as soon as Hussein was out of the way that democracy would just grow like a chia pet or something.

Attacking Iraq did more great harm to our security. It created an additional rallying cause and, more importantly, rallying point.

You can't impose democracy, and definetly not on a Islamic country. Man-made law is against Islamic principles. Only a democracy in which religious leaders are selected would be tolerated for any significant length of time in the Muslim world.

I'm sorry to say this, but only a secular dictatorship can control the radical Muslim movement. That is why Saddam lasted so long, and how he prevented a coup from an Iranian style movement.

As long as the middle east is primarily Muslim (forever), oppressive political leaders must be in power to keep the whole area from becoming a purely hostile, radically Islamic terrorist heaven. Religion corrupts.

That's a very interesting perspective. Just to clear it up, you say that Islam, specifically radical elements, can only be controlled by a secular dictatorship, a la Saddam? Im not disagreeing or agreeing with you, but that is a very interesting opinion.

Bush was justified in going to war. America was attacked and had to denfend itself from terrorism. That's why America went to war. We also gave democratcy to peoples who were under evil regimes and were severly oppressed. We did all of this with only a few thousand casualities. It took a couple hundred thousand casualities to liberate Germany and Japan from evil regimes. The war in Iraq and Afganistan were definately worth it.

I don't like the entire Bush administration, but I think it's both wise and necessary to evaluate whether or not his foreign policy was/is/will be successful.

Fair enough. Now you have to decide by what criterion or, preferably, criteria you are going to judge if his foreign policy is successful. There are several options here:
Financial- is foreign trade with the USA better?
Image- do people believe the USA to be a better place than they did before?
Influence - Does the USA have more political influence around the world?
Imperialism - has the USA imposed its model on more places?

There have been several threads on this board [recently, anyhow] about democracy in the middle east. Folks have been hashing it out as to whether or not it was really successful. You can find one here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=401520) and another here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=401154&highlight=wave+hope).[/quote

Are it is to be just Imperialism then. Foreign policy success is toi be measured by the imposition of the american system of politics in other countries.

[QUOTE=Trammwerk]For a moment, set aside your opinion of Bush's economic and domestic policies, however connected they may be, and set aside claims [true or false] that he misled America.

OK just foreign policy then. Nothing internal.

Instead consider the current rationale for war - that is, the liberation of the Middle East from despotic rule and the introduction of true democracy to the region - and whether or not it is justified.
Definitely Imperialism. This is now confirmed.

Do the benefits outweigh the costs? Does the future look good or bad? What could the U.S. and the world at large be doing to improve the situation there? How has Bush's foreign policy bungled things up, and where has it succeeded?

Benefits to whom, costs to whom? Halliburton yes, the Iraqis, you'll have to ask them. I don't know. The families of the dead american soldiers, no. Seems like this is undecided.
What could the US be doing to improve the situation. Nothing really. Not now. They could have avoided the war, but they did not, so that is a moot point.
The world in general. Also nothing. I do not see much that Vanuatu could do. The world less in general and more closely involved by being neighbours or religious brothers. They could appeal to the insurgents to stop, they could apeal to the americans to stop. They may be listened to by one side or the other. Right at the moment there is no movement towards a resolution of the "insurgent" problem other than military action. This is not going to work and leave an economically viable country behind. The two sides need to stop shooting and blowing up bombs. Both sides.

Where has Bush's foreign policy bungled things up. Let us go back to the criteria.
Financial: Trade deficit the worst ever. Bungled
Image: Nuff said. Bungled
Influence: Gained some part of Iraq, lost most of europe. Bungled
Imperialism: Potential installation of democracy in Iraq. Potential gain.


Final score 12.5% half of one of four categories. This may become 25% if the democracy holds in Iraq.

Do the benefits outweigh the costs?

The possible answers to this question are purely opinion. What it seems to be asking is 'Is it worth our lives to give them democracy? (Read: When we say democracy, what we're really referring to is the right to vote for what ever goverment you want, oppressive or not. While it would be unfortunate if they elected a dictatorship, at least they'd have no one to blame but themselves when they're back in the torture chambers.)' The answer is, sort of. I'd be willing to go over to Iraq and lose a couple legs fighting for their freedom. Of course, in return I'd ask that our government do their best to actually uphold whatever government they choose to elect. The thing is that I would not be willing to die for it. I don't want to die. I'll risk limb, but not life. It's kind of an interesting question. Personal opinions about Bush's foreign policy as stated in the State of the Union aside, this is a big thing in foreign policy. The notion that American soldiers are willing to go above and beyond the call of duty (to defend their country) and making their goal to spread democracy to people that will never threaten us as long as we periodically blow up their WMD production centers is something else. Personal opinions not aside, I'll have to think carefully about it.

Does the future look good or bad?

Depends on whether your hummer is currently being ambushed by insurgents. If it is I'd say things look iffy. If it isn't and you're able to look at the big picture, I'd say things look great for Afghanistan and thing are edging in the right direction in Iraq. Iran needs to have its nuclear program blown sky high, but only after we take care of North Korea. If we can do both simultaneously, great, but I don't think we can. North Korea is a much bigger threat then Iran. I don't know whether a good old American ass kicking is in order or if we should just get China ready to bury them if they even think the phrase 'nuclear weapon'. The latter would require more multilateral negotiation, and North Korea doesn't like that because they know we can probably get China on our side. As much communist comradery as they have going on between them, we're the ones with 'Made in China' stamped on every single thing we buy.

What could the U.S. and the world at large be doing to improve the situation there?

I assume by there you mean Iraq? I've gone off on a tangent or two. All I can think of is that the U.S. could sacrifice its first born sons to a volcano in order to keep the gods pleased. I'm not sure what else we CAN do with Iraq. We're already doing what we can. The world at large being those that weren't 'with' us could help by sending money and bodies in the form of civil engineers, construction workers, and soldiers (unless they're French, in which case it's just as well that they aren't there since we'd lose what ever city block they have fortified to infants with RPGs). That's what we really need over there. We don't need them to like it. They can complain all they want. Just make sure that they can sign checks while they whine.

How has Bush's foreign policy bungled things up, and where has it succeeded?

I'd have to brush up on the last four years to be able to fully answer that. I'm sure I'm forgetting some things from before Iraq was invaided.

Bush has bungled (politicians hate that word!) quite a few things. I don't think I'm going out on a limb when I say that ever mentioning 'vast stockpiles of WMDs' and 'Iraq' in the same thought was not a great idea. Of course he was working off the intelligence we had, but the problem was that we didn't have any good sources in Iraq getting intelligence! No Americans on the ground. Just bribed Iraqis. That's a good way to get your ass lied to and the CIA needs to change how they do things. There were some WMDs in Iraq. I know that many 50 gallon drums of cyto-sarin (a pesticide that is a pre-curser to sarin) were found in a trench at a small military base and an IED with actual sarin was found in an IED outside the Baghdad airport. These just weren't warehouses full.

Flying that 'Mission Accomplished' banner on the aircraft carrier, in hind sight, wouldn't have been a choice I'd have made. Again, he had no clue how events would unfold in Iraq and the banner was specifically referring to the actual invasion, but spin doctors don't care.

I think President Bush's policy, and that of the federal government as a whole, on border control is an embaressment. We can keep illegal immigrants and terrorists out and allow migrant workers in with special passes. We don't have to choose either extreme on the issue. We need the migrant workers working on farms. You simply won't get anyone else to do it. You can get people to work at Wal-Mart though. I know several useless bums of teenagers that live near my dad in Arizona that would love (oh, they'd love it when I told them what I'd do to their sterio system if they didn't take it) a job at Wal-Mart. As it is they don't have a job there and I need to get someone that can speak Spanish to translate for me every other time I go to a check out line in Arizona Wal-Marts. Also, we can't allow Mexico to print pamphlets on how to cross our border. This is a matter of principle. It's a mockery. I think a certain country neighboring us to our south is BEGGING to be Shock-and-Awe'd.

However, I think Bush's foreign policy in regard to Europe is great! When Clinton delt with Europe the name of the game was loud, smiley, and fake. Everyone was buddy-buddy when he visited Europe, but when he got back Europe kinda liked us and we cooperated with them a little bit when we felt like it. If the policy was ever focused, it was dishonest. President Bush breathed a bit of honesty into our dealings with other countries. He has a very direct, unyielding, and honest foreign policy. These are all very good things and it must continue (I think Kerry would have followed Clinton's way of doing things except for the friendly part since I figure it's hard for a wooden plank with a crudely drawn face dressed in an expensive suit to be chummy. It's just as well that he lost.). Of course it's essential to be mature enough to, as Hobbes said, hold strong when you can and compromise when you have to, but it's nice to be able to start diplomacy looking unyeilding and self-serving. We can work from there - if we have to.

George Bush has done a good job of juggling situations around the world. This isn't to say that other presidents couldn't juggle several importaint issues at once, just that Bush has done it and that doing so is a good thing. John Kerry accused the president of letting an imminent threat develop in North Korea because he was focused on Iraq solely. The way Kerry said it, it meant that because George Bush put an emphasis on Iraq in public speeches he could not possibly, at the same time, have diplomats dealing with North Korea. The thing is that the United States CAN chew gum and walk at the same time. Kerry implied that we had to deal with one foreign policy issue at a time and that's just not so. George Bush didn't do anything to allow North Korea to build up their nuclear program. Bill Clinton had something to do with it, though. Remember that 1994 Agreed Framework (http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/resources/koreaaf.htm) we hammerd out with North Korea? That pact requested that North Korea stop its existing nuclear programs in exchange for oil and two light-water nuclear reactors. North Korea accepted our tribute of energy, but even as the U.S. government celebrated its new-found cooperation, North Korea was proceeding with a contraband nuclear program. The agreed framework was nothing more then North Korea giving us scout's honor that it wouldn't start its program again.

We can't deal with North Korea unilaterally like, according to Kerry, we did with Iraq (never mind that we had gained the support of many allies before going in). I believe that Kerry said something to the affect of 'The situation with North Korea is too risky. We can't allow anyone else negotiate with them. We must do it alone to ensure that our interests are protected.'. One small problem with this line of thought. North Korea can't actually hit any part of the United States other then Alaska or Hawaii (I would assume they can hit Hawaii. I don't THINK they can hit the west coast. Correct me if I'm wrong.). They can hit their neighbors. Their neighbors just happen to be world powers and might have an interest in what a little psychotic rogue nation of a neighbor does with their nukes.

That's where it stood with Kerry. Unilateral with North Korea and multilateral with Iraq. Sidelike China, Russia, and Japan, and bring in France. Interesting choice of policy. I'll stick with President Bush's path.

True, we would be mighty pissed if the Germans came in and changed our government. But it can be argued that we weren't under a despotic ruler who tortured us and violated our human rights, whereas the Iraqis and Aghans were. Maybe we would desire someone to come and help us out if we found ourselves being tyrannized... kind of like we did during the Revolutionary War when we needed France to help us shake off the shackles of British colonialism.

I would just like to clarify the fact that our government is taking hundreds of people right now and detaining them for no real specific reason other than a slight hunch that they might be a terrorist, know a terrorist, or smelled the same air as a terrorist, and WE are holding them with no proof of it. As well as the fact that we detained thousands of japanese americans during world war 2 thinking that they were spies. This also goes for thousands of people who were suspected communists...We arnt gassing our people but WE certainly do not have a near flawless record.

Attacking Iraq did more great harm to our security. It created an additional rallying cause and, more importantly, rallying point.
Statistics would suggest this, yes. Very dissapointing, and at the very least, a short-term blow to the war on terrorism. The question is though, if democracy is successful in the middle east, will it eliminate extremist terrorism in that region in the long run? Some say yes.

You can't impose democracy, and definetly not on a Islamic country. Man-made law is against Islamic principles. Only a democracy in which religious leaders are selected would be tolerated for any significant length of time in the Muslim world.
Well like I said, we've already imposed it on other countries. And it seems to have worked out well for Germany and Japan.

I'm sorry to say this, but only a secular dictatorship can control the radical Muslim movement. That is why Saddam lasted so long, and how he prevented a coup from an Iranian style movement.
As I understand it, Turkey is a democratic republic that is extremely muslim.

I don't think it's justifyable to go to war to democratize other countries. I understand why Bush did it, but that doesn't make it right. Who's to say that the Iraqi people want a democracy?
Why is it not justifiable? What are the moral implications of democratizing a nation through war, and why do they fail to meet with your own moral standards?

And I think with a democracy, the Iraqi people can vote to put someone in office who will un-democratize the nation.

America was attacked and had to denfend itself from terrorism. That's why America went to war.
The problem is, there's no proof that Saddam was aiding terrorists, and his communications with terrorists are tenuous at best. It's difficult to make the argument that America went to war with Iraq due to terrorist activity there, because there really doesn't seem to have been any at all [until America came, that is].

Evil Arch Conservative - Wow. That's in-depth. You do ramble, but for the most part, that was a good way of framing things.

I would just like to clarify the fact that our government is taking hundreds of people right now and detaining them for no real specific reason other than a slight hunch that they might be a terrorist, know a terrorist, or smelled the same air as a terrorist, and WE are holding them with no proof of it. As well as the fact that we detained thousands of japanese americans during world war 2 thinking that they were spies. This also goes for thousands of people who were suspected communists...We arnt gassing our people but WE certainly do not have a near flawless record.
I specifically didn't mention this when refering to the state of our civil and political rights and freedoms. I acknowledge that the U.S. government has done some terrible things. But the average citizen enjoys a sensible mix of civil and political rights, our past transgressions aside.

I would also note that there is a broader scheme to this. In addition to the [alleged] liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan, Syria is having pressure put on it from all sides, Lebanon is showing signs of slipping from Syria's grasp, Egypt is holding multi-party elections for the first time in 20+ years, Palestine and Israel are making strides in the peace process that might never have been dreamed of in the past 30 years, and it is hoped that with the examples of Afghanistan and Iraq nearby, Iran's despot will soon be toppled by the country's youth with a revolutionary bent. With all of these things coming in right now, the reasonable mind must ask itself: are Bush's policies responsible, ultimately, for this rush to liberalization in the Middle East?

No matter how much I dislike his domestic and economic policy, I have to wonder.

I'd like to offer a slightly different view point. In all these responses, everyone takes it that America's/Bush's motives are to liberate a people and spread democracy; whereas, I think that America's actions tend to be motivated by resources and economics. This war, as I see it, is about oil and openning another third world economy. We can go throughout the world and pick out nations that are giving the US resources for a meager price. Just to name some examples, Nigeria (oil), Philippines (food), and Latin America (diamonds). These countries also tend to have the worst cases of poverty; the most notable example being Nigeria, an oil-rich country with one of the worst cases of poverty (the reason being Shell and Exxon together export 95% of the country's oil). Furthermore, the US opens up economies, such as India's, to American corporations. The first order of business after Saddam was officially declared toppled was to sign contracts with American corporations for water and power. Iraqis had no say in this.

What are the effects of this type of foreign policy? It tends to funnel money out of the local economy and into American economy. After all, US companies are more likely to invest in their own country rather than a third world country. This also creates satellite economies that are highly dependent on America's corporations. Although, I think this type of foreign policy has a backlash too. American corporations are looking to India and other foreign markets to set up manufacturing plants and cut costs, costing Americans their jobs.

Even the spread of democracy can be viewed like this. If a country is a democracy then it is more sympathetic to other democracies, facilitating the sale and trade of oil and other resources.

And how does America get away with this? Why don't the countries' governments put a stop to this? The answer is temptation, in the form of money and power. People in government get a taste of this and don't want to give it up, even at the cost of their own people. By supplying America what America wants, America will give those governments enough weapons to put down any resistance.

Think about it. Why would any American sacrifice his/her life for someone else's progress? Would you put yourself in danger and even get yourself killed for someone else's sake? I am highly skeptical that anyone would honestly consider giving up their lives and families by answering yes to this. I once had an instructor tell me that no man will give you your freedom. Instead, you will have to take it. Also, it is no secret that "spheres of influence" have existed throughout Eastern Europe and the Middle East since the end of WWII.

The way I see it is that this war is an age old war between the haves and the have nots. America has, and wants more. America is aware of the devastating affect of an oil embargo by all Arab nations against the US (a la the 70's). America is aware of having a friend in the business that can supply that oil (a la Saddam Hussein in the 80's and Saudia Arabia in the 90's). The Muslims and any rebels that are currently fighting the US are the have nots, looking to have a better life. One can argue using Osma Bin Laden's fortunes (he was a prince after all). However, note that Osma Bin Laden's followers are all poor. He is even based in a poor country. To take another example, rebels in the Philippines and Indonesia tend to have the same poor background. After all, if you're poor you have less to lose and lots to gain.

So, if you follow what I have said so far (and I'm not saying that you do), it is reasonable to ask, is it right or wrong? Note this is an AGE OLD war. The Romans did it. The Greeks did it. Imperialistic Europe did it. And any prominent civilization in history has in one way or another done it. Is it a necessity to commit these acts to gain this power? Most likely. Are there benefits that justify these acts? I don't know about justification. But, each society does end up making a contribution towards the progress of mankind. I think America's is technology and science. I think Islam is looking to make its own. Can America make this contribution without taking advantage of other peoples? Most unlikely. The money acts like a vehicle, and having opportunity concentrated in one place draws smart, talented individuals to that country. None of this really makes it right or wrong, I suppose. That is really up to the individual's conscience. However, I think we can definitely say it is primitive. It sounds like something a historically significant, barbaric people would do (even the torture and humiliation of the enemy falls under this). When I think of a fair and equal world, the next step in the progress and evolution of soceity, a utopia sort of speak, I don't think of this. ..... I'll stop it there before I get into the philosophies of utopia. :D

...set aside claims [true or false] that he misled America. Instead consider the current rationale for war - that is, the liberation of the Middle East from despotic rule and the introduction of true democracy to the region - and whether or not it is justified. Do the benefits outweigh the costs?

This is an irrelevant question if you believe that this "rationale" is all propaganda.

Why is it bad? Don't you think that's a simplistic way of thinking, especially without some sort of justification?

Not every country that becomes a democracy becomes one through rebellion. Britain and Canada are examples. And what about Japan and Germany? Was democracy sort of forced on them? It seems justified 50+ years later.

Japan had democracy before America invaded. Symbolicly they considered it sacreligous to call Japan a republic, but they had a functioning representative legislature a lot like Englands. The Emperor had official power, but was for all practical purposes a figurehead for the Prime Minister. Of course, none of that matters for purposes of this argument. We didn't invade Japan to bring them democracy, we did it because they bombed us and we wanted to use their territory as a front in the ensuing cold war.

I'd like to offer a slightly different view point. In all these responses, everyone takes it that America's/Bush's motives are to liberate a people and spread democracy; whereas, I think that America's actions tend to be motivated by resources and economics. This war, as I see it, is about oil and openning another third world economy. We can go throughout the world and pick out nations that are giving the US resources for a meager price. Just to name some examples, Nigeria (oil), Philippines (food), and Latin America (diamonds).

This is different? I thought it was the assumption by all except the most hard-core, head-in-the-sand republicans. America has never waged a war in defense of Human rights it just uses that as a rationale for invading. We're past the age of empires now, so instead we simply go through the IMF and demand that they sell their national assets to American companies for a song.

Just take a look at how much of Yugoslavia got sold off to Kellog Brown and Root after they fell apart.

Let's address this, then, Progress and Evolution!

In all these responses, everyone takes it that America's/Bush's motives are to liberate a people and spread democracy; whereas, I think that America's actions tend to be motivated by resources and economics. This war, as I see it, is about oil and openning another third world economy. We can go throughout the world and pick out nations that are giving the US resources for a meager price. Just to name some examples, Nigeria (oil), Philippines (food), and Latin America (diamonds). These countries also tend to have the worst cases of poverty; the most notable example being Nigeria, an oil-rich country with one of the worst cases of poverty (the reason being Shell and Exxon together export 95% of the country's oil). Furthermore, the US opens up economies, such as India's, to American corporations. The first order of business after Saddam was officially declared toppled was to sign contracts with American corporations for water and power. Iraqis had no say in this.
Now, my response here is that despite what you may think about the motivations behind the wars in the Middle East, a real liberal movement towards peace and democratization seems to be rising there, and one must wonder if this was directly caused by Bush's heavyhanded tactics in that region? I believe it's a valid question even if you are correct about the true nature of the war. Good things can come of bad intentions, after all. And if Bush's tactics are responsible, is it good that he did? Will it be good in the future? Will it last? Were I thinking like you, I might think that Bush would simply destabilize the region through more wars, in Iran and Syria.

Even the spread of democracy can be viewed like this. If a country is a democracy then it is more sympathetic to other democracies, facilitating the sale and trade of oil and other resources.
Clever. Kind of obvious reading it, but I consider it a clever observation that I hadn't thought of.

And how does America get away with this? Why don't the countries' governments put a stop to this? The answer is temptation, in the form of money and power. People in government get a taste of this and don't want to give it up, even at the cost of their own people. By supplying America what America wants, America will give those governments enough weapons to put down any resistance.
But other nations DID try to stop America as best they could. They can't take military action, so the best they can do is use international politics in an effort to pressure the U.S. to do as it wishes. It didn't really work, of course. Maybe there is some level of greed there [oil for food, anyone?], but it seems to me as though the international community did all it could to control the U.S. without damaging relations too much.

So, if you follow what I have said so far (and I'm not saying that you do), it is reasonable to ask, is it right or wrong? Note this is an AGE OLD war. The Romans did it. The Greeks did it. Imperialistic Europe did it. And any prominent civilization in history has in one way or another done it. Is it a necessity to commit these acts to gain this power? Most likely.
This is very true. It is in the nature of a powerful, expanding nation to consume; once it has everything inside it's borders at it's disposal, it tends to look for other ways to consume, and other areas to consume as well. However, this idea is based on the economic models of Rome, Greece and Imperial Europe. Do these hold up in the global economy? I might say no. While an oil embargo would certainly damage the U.S. extensively, that is not a pressing concern, nor should it be while the U.S. maintains friendly economic relations with the Saudis, Venezuela, Canada and the OPEC organization. The way the economy worked in the economic models you mentioned seems vastly different from the consumer-based capitalist economy the West is currently working off of. Wealth recycles itself, it's reabsorbed into the economy once it's used, whereas in ancient Greece and Rome, and to a lesser extent Imperial Europe, did not have an economy set up to re-absorb spent resources.

That is really up to the individual's conscience. However, I think we can definitely say it is primitive. It sounds like something a historically significant, barbaric people would do (even the torture and humiliation of the enemy falls under this). When I think of a fair and equal world, the next step in the progress and evolution of soceity, a utopia sort of speak, I don't think of this. ..... I'll stop it there before I get into the philosophies of utopia. :D
Why is it primitve? Like you said, mankind has done it since Rome.. before Rome, even. The only reason man ever fought was for resources - more room, more food, more women, whatever. Is it wrong simply because it is rooted in our base natures?

And again. I think you might be dodging the fact that despite all predictions, democracy, for the moment, seems to be spreading in the Middle East.

P.S. I would like to compliment you on asking whether or not your assertions are morally justifiable. I've noticed some folks like to leave things hanging in the wind, assuming they have moral implications without voicing them. And while they might, it's a poor argument that is unspoken.

No.

All people deserve the government they have.

The world would be safer if we hadn't so many people sticking their noses into other people's affairs.


Anyway, since the US has no intention to attack North Korea (or do they?), it would be a nice move to declare that openly and push the ball into Kim's court.

the difference is... in this country your not killed for not liking the government. your allowed to express your ideas openly and freely and can choose your leaders. In Iraq your shot, hung, tortured... Same with your faimly and anyone who many know you. Kurds in the north in the swamp lands were hunted and killed because they were nomadic and "impossible to control".

How can you make a corrolation between the US being taken over by a Facist state which will inherentily restrict human rights .. and the US (seemingly liberating) the Iraqi people from a brutal dictatorship who had no respect for Human rights. And as of today Iraq is a Sovergin country who held their own elections... if they are so enthusiastic about the old regime as you suggest.. the old bathist party members could have easily been re-elected into teh government.

And simply look at the way the government was structured under saddam. 20% of the population was ruling the other 80% ?? the Majority ethnicity was treated as the minority with no say in governance or law.... and your trying to make the case that they enjoyed their old government ? HOW ?

I never said they enjoyed their old government. But I don't think the new one is any better. The U.S. fixed the election in Iraq (just as they did here) so that the people they (the U.S. government) wanted were 'elected' in order for the U.S. to be able to have its little puppet government. So actually, it's possible the bathist party members were elected, but we'll never know because of the wonderful coverup our government has provided. Congratulations Iraq; you now have a wonderful, stain-free democracy just like in America. [note sarcasm]
p.s. look up the definition for 'liberate'. I assure you, it's not what the U.S. has been spoonfeeding its citizens.

I wish the U.S. would adopt the same foreign policy as Switzerland.

I wish the U.S. would adopt the same foreign policy as Switzerland.

I second that.

Afganistan, justified, willfully hindering the prosecution of known terrorists known to be hiding there.

Iraq unjustified, a "pre-emptive" attack. Yes democracy is a good thing. Yes Saddam was a very bad man. It is still unjustified as our purpose for attacking was to prevent what might happen in the future. That is like convicting someone of a murder they might commit and sentencing them to death, unjustified!

I wish the U.S. would adopt the same foreign policy as Switzerland.


Oh, so you'd rather be ruled by Hitler than live with most of your freedoms intact??

It's really way too early to say if the Bush policy in the Middle east is justified, but I lean towards a "no" verdict. Also

1. I have reservations about Bush's commitment to freedom and democracy. He claims to push for it in Iraq, but his administration openly tries to undermine fairly elected President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, just because he nationalised the oil companies.

Consistent support for the current dictatorships in Haiti, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia also causes claims of freedom to ring hollow.

2. I am annoyed by the supreme arrogance demonstrated by his administration. They appear to feel that their agenda is so important that it must be done, even if that involves undermining the international community, committing election fraud, and lying to the American people.

I wish the U.S. would adopt the same foreign policy as Switzerland.
A UN member.

Oh, so you'd rather be ruled by Hitler than live with most of your freedoms intact??

If we pursued a non-interventionist foreign policy, we never would have gotten entangled in the Mexican War, the Spanish-American War, WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War, Gulf War, Kosovo, Gulf War II, etc. Switzerland is neutral, and they haven't fought a war since 1815.

If we pursued a non-interventionist foreign policy, we never would have gotten entangled in ... WWII.
Do you really think that Hitler could have been defeated without American help?

Do you really think that Hitler could have been defeated without American help?

Maybe. But instead of going to war, we should have supported the anti-Hitler resistance and encouraged a coup.

I have reservations about Bush's commitment to freedom and democracy.
Yet, if it's spreading the Middle East, what does his level of commitment matter? He appears to be getting results.

I never said they enjoyed their old government. But I don't think the new one is any better. The U.S. fixed the election in Iraq (just as they did here) so that the people they (the U.S. government) wanted were 'elected' in order for the U.S. to be able to have its little puppet government.
Is there hard evidence of this?

So actually, it's possible the bathist party members were elected, but we'll never know because of the wonderful coverup our government has provided. Congratulations Iraq; you now have a wonderful, stain-free democracy just like in America. [note sarcasm]
Don't you think that the people elected into power in Iraq by the recent elections are not the kind of people the Bush administration would have wanted? Bush envisioned a secular liberal democracy, and it seems as though the constitution will be based on Islamic law, giving a theocratic bent to Iraq's government. That this is nearly the opposite of what Bush wanted would suggest that he had little control over who was and wasn't going to be elected. Hell, Chalabi was nearly re-elected. The Iranian spy who fed us false information! Surely Bush wouldn't have approved of that little faux pas.

And still, why is everyone focusing on Iraq so much? There are other countries in the Middle East, folks.

Now, my response here is that despite what you may think about the motivations behind the wars in the Middle East, a real liberal movement towards peace and democratization seems to be rising there, and one must wonder if this was directly caused by Bush's heavyhanded tactics in that region? I believe it's a valid question even if you are correct about the true nature of the war. Good things can come of bad intentions, after all. And if Bush's tactics are responsible, is it good that he did? Will it be good in the future? Will it last? Were I thinking like you, I might think that Bush would simply destabilize the region through more wars, in Iran and Syria.

OK, there does seem to be a movement towards peace and democracy. I think there is a movement towards peace because there has been war in that region for so long. Furthermore, when an outsider comes in the way the US did, people take a big step back, look around and begin to ask, "is this how we want to live?" I don't think peace is necessarily tied in to democracy but is coming about due to the prolonged duration of war.

There also seems to be a movement towards democracy (whether it will last, only time will tell). However, your assumption seems to be that democracy is a good thing, at least in all circumstance, maybe even the cure of all evil. I do not agree with this. Not that democracy is a bad thing, but it's people who make up governments. No matter what form of government you have, if the people are corrupt, the government is corrupt. Why do I bring this up? If the Iraqi government (present and future) is having its strings pulled by the US, then we have replaced one tyrannical figure (Saddam) with another (America). How has this helped the people of Iraq? This is why I mentioned countries like Nigeria, the Philippines, and Latin America in my earlier post. These countries' governments have their strings pulled by the US to do the US bidding. In turn, these countries are very poor and the people suffer for it. Is this what is becoming of Iraq, a once respectable country?


But other nations DID try to stop America as best they could. They can't take military action, so the best they can do is use international politics in an effort to pressure the U.S. to do as it wishes. It didn't really work, of course. Maybe there is some level of greed there [oil for food, anyone?], but it seems to me as though the international community did all it could to control the U.S. without damaging relations too much.

When I said, "Why don't the countries' governments put a stop to this?", I was refering to the governments of the countries being invaded, not the international community. The international community, like the US, is self serving and will not put their welfare at stake for the sake of others. You allude to this by acknowledging that they wouldn't take military action against the US nor damage relations with the US extensively. My point was that the governements of the countries that are invaded do not stop the US because they gain the power and money that comes with being head of state, although at the expense of others. The US encourages this type of behavior because they have someone who will leave the backdoor open for them. If they should step out of line, as Saddam did, then they go in and remove him to protect their investments.

This is very true. It is in the nature of a powerful, expanding nation to consume; once it has everything inside it's borders at it's disposal, it tends to look for other ways to consume, and other areas to consume as well. However, this idea is based on the economic models of Rome, Greece and Imperial Europe. Do these hold up in the global economy? I might say no. While an oil embargo would certainly damage the U.S. extensively, that is not a pressing concern, nor should it be while the U.S. maintains friendly economic relations with the Saudis, Venezuela, Canada and the OPEC organization. The way the economy worked in the economic models you mentioned seems vastly different from the consumer-based capitalist economy the West is currently working off of. Wealth recycles itself, it's reabsorbed into the economy once it's used, whereas in ancient Greece and Rome, and to a lesser extent Imperial Europe, did not have an economy set up to re-absorb spent resources.

I beg to differ on this point. 15 of 19 hijackers in 9/11 were Saudi born. This is not a coincidence. This is a statement, that there is anti-American sentiment growing in Saudi Arabia. A statement that the American government heard loud clear. The relations between America and the Saudi government are not strained; however, the Saudi government will have to answer to the Saudi people's uprising should their cries of discontent grow louder (the Saudi government and the Saudi elite make up only 5% of the Saudi population!). This means the US has to get out of Saudi Arabia, and even though they will continue to make deals with the Saudi government for oil, whose oil-bearing economy will the US overrun so to make it impossible to severe ties with the US without destroying the economy. (Also, who will patrol no-fly zones in Iraq if there are no bases in Saudi Arabia?)

Furthermore, America's relations with Venezula are currently strained. I do think the US needs a foothold in an oil bearing country because another oil shortage would slow down the economy. I do think that having ties with OPEC and Canada are not enough. I also think that if Canada and a small handful of other countries are the only sources of oil for America, then they can jack up the price as they like. Lastly, I think that America is also looking to monopolize as many oil sources as possible. This would give them a distinct advantage in another world scale war.


Why is it primitve? Like you said, mankind has done it since Rome.. before Rome, even. The only reason man ever fought was for resources - more room, more food, more women, whatever. Is it wrong simply because it is rooted in our base natures?

The fact that Rome and empires before Rome did this prove that it is primitive, because certainly we wouldn't call these civilizations modern. The fact that it is rooted in our base nature proves that it is primitive, because it is something an animal would do. I am not saying it is right or wrong. I am not saying being primitive is right or wrong. I am just saying it is primitive.

It's like world peace. How do you attain world peace? My answer is to completely disarm every nation. But, this is beyond today's man because no nation on this planet has enough trust in every other nation of the world to do this. Does that mean it will never happen? No. It just won't happen right now because it is beyond man's current capacity. This is why I say our current International forums and dealings are primitive.

the sad fact is, he who has the weapons decides what is justified and right. Whether this is right or wrong morally bears little influence as to what is done in the world.

How has this helped the people of Iraq? This is why I mentioned countries like Nigeria, the Philippines, and Latin America in my earlier post. These countries' governments have their strings pulled by the US to do the US bidding. In turn, these countries are very poor and the people suffer for it. Is this what is becoming of Iraq, a once respectable country?
Well, I would note that Iraq really hasn't been a respectable country for awhile. The international community can generally agree that Saddam was an egomaniacal madman unfit for rule.


The fact that Rome and empires before Rome did this prove that it is primitive, because certainly we wouldn't call these civilizations modern.
Yet, a number of things have been taken from these civilizations and adapted to the modern world. Democracy, republicanism, law codes and a "system of alliances." Based on your logic, these things are primitive as well.

Part of the problem in the middle east is the fact that the autocratic regimes there have used multiple methods to keep their people in submission. The obvious traditional measures are being employed (jailing dissidents, restricting various freedoms, no free elections, etc.) but beyond that they've been able to focus the anger of their people on an outside factor, that factor specifically being the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. They are the real problem there, for if it weren't for other Arab nations, the Palestinians would have had a state by now. In fact, they would have had a state in the nineteen-forties. But other Arab nations came crashing in and ruined it. They have kept the Palestinian refugees in their nations in perpetual poverty and have been able to make their people angry about that. Beyond that, the outside Arabs have been using people as suicide bombers to perpetuate the conflict, stall the peace process, and thus continue to focus the anger of their people there, instead of on the dreadful conditions in their own country.

The recent attack on the nightclub in Tel Aviv is fairly good evidence of this, with the Syrian involvement and the like. But, beyond that, this balance has been distrubed. The Israeli's aren't retaliating. And the situation in Lebanon is very fragile. Something is happening in the middle east, and the New York Times might just be right in the fact that Bush is involved in it. The previously impregnable fortress of the Middle Eastern Autocrats is falling, and it is falling in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq and many other isolated, but increasingly common incidents. A trigger was needed. I cannot tell you if the US invasion of Iraq was the trigger. The trigger might be the change in the Palestinian government and their conflict with Israel. The change might even be based in the Syrian assassination of the former Lebanese Prime Minister. I don't know. But if I'm right, we might just see radical changes in the region in the next two decades.

Well, I would note that Iraq really hasn't been a respectable country for awhile. The international community can generally agree that Saddam was an egomaniacal madman unfit for rule.


I am not saying Saddam is good man, but at least he looked after his own country. He built up Iraq's economy so that the Iraqi Dinar is three times stronger than the American Dollar. Will America be looking after Iraq in that way? According to its track record (again refering to Nigeria, Philippines, etc), the answer is no. Furthermore, Saddam has only recently received that label because he fell out of line with America, not because he did those things. How long has America and the international community known about Saddam's atrocities and done nothing about it? America condemns Saddam for his atrocities but then commits their own (ie, Abu Gharib).


Yet, a number of things have been taken from these civilizations and adapted to the modern world. Democracy, republicanism, law codes and a "system of alliances." Based on your logic, these things are primitive as well.


Look, I am not trying to put down Rome or any other civilization in the past. I am saying, however, that these things do not fall under a world where equality and opportunity for all exist. If this is our goal and if one day our goal is realized, we will look back at these times as primitive.

The real question is does Bush even know what foreign policy means? :D

Part of the problem in the middle east is the fact that the autocratic regimes there have used multiple methods to keep their people in submission. The obvious traditional measures are being employed (jailing dissidents, restricting various freedoms, no free elections, etc.) but beyond that they've been able to focus the anger of their people on an outside factor, that factor specifically being the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. They are the real problem there, for if it weren't for other Arab nations, the Palestinians would have had a state by now. In fact, they would have had a state in the nineteen-forties. But other Arab nations came crashing in and ruined it. They have kept the Palestinian refugees in their nations in perpetual poverty and have been able to make their people angry about that. Beyond that, the outside Arabs have been using people as suicide bombers to perpetuate the conflict, stall the peace process, and thus continue to focus the anger of their people there, instead of on the dreadful conditions in their own country.


You have so much faith in your own government.

I am not saying Saddam is good man, but at least he looked after his own country. He built up Iraq's economy so that the Iraqi Dinar is three times stronger than the American Dollar. Will America be looking after Iraq in that way? According to its track record (again refering to Nigeria, Philippines, etc), the answer is no. Furthermore, Saddam has only recently received that label because he fell out of line with America, not because he did those things.

Saddam looked after his own country? When was that? If you consider building several ornate palaces while your people are starving and in need of medical attention as "looking after his own country", I think you should do a little more research on Iraq. I won't even mention his use of mustard gas on the Kurds.

Saddam looked after his own country? When was that? If you consider building several ornate palaces while your people are starving and in need of medical attention as "looking after his own country", I think you should do a little more research on Iraq. I won't even mention his use of mustard gas on the Kurds.

Like I said, Saddam built Iraq's economy. I acknowledge he killed his own people but in many ways he helped progress the country (see the 1980's). My argument is that America has come in and killed as many (if not more) Iraqis than Saddam has. The difference is that America will plunge the country into poverty while it ships out oil.

You have so much faith in your own government.
No more than I feel is justified.

My point is this: I think the US will deal with Iraq the way it has with other countries; that is, it will take its resources and plummet the country into poverty and the people of that country will suffer for it.

Will democracy be a remedy for this? No. The US will never spend so much money and lives on a country and just let it go. Whatever government comes into power will be America's puppet, serving America at the expense of their own people.

So, is this war justified? That is not so easy to answer. America has, and wants more. And, it makes people suffer for it. This is obviously not right. But, then again, concentrating power in one area like this allows for a civilization to make a contribution to mankind, and most likely that contribution cannot be made without taking as much as they can get. So, maybe in that light, it is justified.

So, whether it is right or wrong, I don't know. I do think it is a natural part of our world. Similar to a tiger killing a deer. Is the tiger wrong for what it did?

This is the best thread ever. Discussion consisting of more then one paragraph per post!

Historically speaking, the US rarely spreads democracy. They spread capitalism in the guise of democracy. If it's not capitalism, the US wants out. Let me point out, then, the glaring examples in Latin America of American intervention to prevent the progress of several nations. First of all.. guess what's the biggest reason Cuba's in the shits right now? Is it because it's still going through a revolution? Because of a dictator? Nuh-uh, it's largely because the US refuses to trade with it because they're smelly commies and they can't seem to assassinate that guy. I don't like Castro myself, but that's a little fact there for ya. Second, I'd like to point out to the United States' DIRECT involvement in the coup in Chile which placed a DICTATOR in power. For those of you out there who are still skeptical about this whole deal of Kissinger being directly involved can do a little googling, there's phone logs in which Kissinger was quoted to say "It's done, I mean, we helped them." when talking to Nixon three days later about the coup that overthrew Salvador Allende (yes, silly people, he WAS elected DEMOCRATICALLY). There's also historical evidence of the US intervening with certain negotiations which could've brought upon the union of South America as one country with a system and constitution much like the US's. On yet ANOTHER note, I'd like to point to that little island a little East of the Dominican Republic. It's called Puerto Rico, and it's a glaring example of militaristic and imperialistic colonialism of the US in the 20th century. Puerto Rico was officially declared a province of Spain, from being a colony, only a few months before the Spanish American war. What happened after 1898? The US put Puerto Rico under an AMERICAN MILITARY GOVERNMENT. How long? a couple months? Nope, 50 years. Governors and legislature of Puerto Rico were *military* officers directly appointed by the President of the United States. That's not democracy. It took 50 years for Puerto Rico to finally be allowed into commonwealth status. Its SPECIFIC status is, in fact, recognized as that of a colony. According to our lovely UN, Puerto Rico is the only remaining colony in the WORLD. And who owns it? The good ol' USA of course.
Iraq is a retarded idea. I STILL don't understand from what dark cavity Bush (or his master, Mr. Dick), pulled out the idea that invading it would make it a happy democratic country! If you think about it... INVADING someone and FORCING a status that was never wanted in the first place is nothing like democracy. I hear all this stuff about Iraq electing its own president, yet I never heard about any referendums to get the Iraqis to vote whether they WANTED a President or not. This is what I like to call American Imperialism at its finest. ^^
And of course, half the people in the country buy his little story because of his Texan charm.
Just FYI too, because I feel like mentioning it...
The electoral college was established because your little "Founding Fathers" had great faith in their people... great faith in the fact that by letting the majority vote, you'd have mostly stupid people voting. Add to that that all the rich people with the power vote too and you have one very happy Administration that serves its second term laughing at all those dumb people they managed to dupe. On a side note, Bush isn't exactly very bright.
Guess what, I'm not a democrat, I'm not even American. Hello America, behold what the world thinks of your dumb people and silly President
/end hating (for now)

Now folks let's be civil.

This is very true. It is in the nature of a powerful, expanding nation to consume; once it has everything inside it's borders at it's disposal, it tends to look for other ways to consume, and other areas to consume as well. However, this idea is based on the economic models of Rome, Greece and Imperial Europe. Do these hold up in the global economy? I might say no. While an oil embargo would certainly damage the U.S. extensively, that is not a pressing concern, nor should it be while the U.S. maintains friendly economic relations with the Saudis, Venezuela, Canada and the OPEC organization. The way the economy worked in the economic models you mentioned seems vastly different from the consumer-based capitalist economy the West is currently working off of. Wealth recycles itself, it's reabsorbed into the economy once it's used, whereas in ancient Greece and Rome, and to a lesser extent Imperial Europe, did not have an economy set up to re-absorb spent resources.


Only America relies entirely upon a consumer economy, this is based upon the strength of the dollar. America reinforces the dollar strength by maintaining dollar control over the oil markets and the dollar as the world reserve currency based on American prestige. Oil and dollars are the reasons America goes to war.

Other Western countries balance budgets, worry about balance of payments and borrowing. Bush has cut revenue and increased spending, Bush facilitates the export of American production to China, India, Mexico.

Bush had to attack Iraq to prevent Saddam trading in euro (French/German currency), so that was a good thing for America. However if America loses in Iraq - by continuing to allow Sunni terrorist sponsoring states to attack - this will damage American prestige and oil market share, this would be really bad.

Here, here Shimikami. I would also like to add, Scientists of the Federation of Progress and Evolution have found that Bush is the genetic missing link between man and chimp.

more like the missing link between protozoae and cheeky monkays ^^

and the thread descends into flame-baiting

I tihnk someone needs to act as world police, as much as other people may disagree. If the league of nations had invaded Germany before WWII, I think we would have been better off. If Hitler had been taken out of power when he invaded Austria, it would have saved millions of lives. So someone needs to take out dictators who think they can genocide on people, especially if the allegedly have access to increasingly dangerous weapons. The UN is the ideal group to do this, because then we have more support, but the UN is a bunch of pussies, made up of corrupt frenchies who were making millions off the food for oil.

I dont know that Bush's course of action is best for the United States. However, in the long run, this policy may be better for the world. It would work better if other countries would agree, but its probly better than nothing if us and England do it.

Bush had to attack Iraq to prevent Saddam trading in euro (French/German currency), so that was a good thing for America. However if America loses in Iraq - by continuing to allow Sunni terrorist sponsoring states to attack - this will damage American prestige and oil market share, this would be really bad.

I would like to add that Sunnis aren't the only ones who want America out. Shia groups haven't fought American troops since the early days of Saddam's downfall. Most of those fighting were from al-Sadr's group. The reason wasn't because they hate America but becasue al-Sadr wanted more influence in the Shia circle. The Shia gave it to him to shut him up.

Why do they want to shut him up? The Shia are laying low so that Americans kill Sunnis and then they can control the majority of the seats in Iraq. Then, they would have the power in Iraq to show America the door. At that time, they were hoping to control maybe as much as 80% of the seats in the government. Nobody in that country really wants America to be there.

Now, hold your horses, kids. Step away from partisan bickering for a moment and just consider recent events. I don't like the entire Bush administration, but I think it's both wise and necessary to evaluate whether or not his foreign policy was/is/will be successful. There have been several threads on this board [recently, anyhow] about democracy in the middle east. Folks have been hashing it out as to whether or not it was really successful. You can find one here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=401520) and another here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=401154&highlight=wave+hope).

For a moment, set aside your opinion of Bush's economic and domestic policies, however connected they may be, and set aside claims [true or false] that he misled America. Instead consider the current rationale for war - that is, the liberation of the Middle East from despotic rule and the introduction of true democracy to the region - and whether or not it is justified. Do the benefits outweigh the costs? Does the future look good or bad? What could the U.S. and the world at large be doing to improve the situation there? How has Bush's foreign policy bungled things up, and where has it succeeded?

I think it's an interesting queston. I don't support Bush. I very much don't support him. So it's a matter of reason and pride for me to examine my thoughts on what he's done and see whether or not I'm justified.

Well, taking away from the situation the fact that he deliberately misled the nation, I would say that his stated end, that of using any and all means to promote democratic rule in the Middle East, is a good thing. Criticisms by people who've read too much Derrida, and even worse applied it to something other than literary analysis aside, there is no real reason why anyone in the world should have to live under a dictatorship, nor is there any viable reason why they would want to if they were presented instead with a democratic government as an alternative. Democracy, for lack of a better term, is good, and it is a universal good.

However, the problem I have with the Bush administration is that they decided to implement this policy at precisely the wrong time. Sept. 11 finally woke Americans up to the fact that there are other countries out there, and that our actions have effects that can really piss them off. The question of whether or not we helped bring about Sept. 11 through our own actions, or whose "fault" it is, is beyond the purview of this post; I simply want to focus on the fact that as a result of whomever, we are now at war with a group whose stated aim is to destroy our way of life, whether through direct action or through indirectly goading us into doing it ourselves. We ought, therefore, to be prosecuting the war against those groups with extreme prejudice. We are not; instead, we are saddling ourselves with long-term military and economic commitments at precisely the time when we need to be the most mobile. We are, in short, fighting the wrong war in Iraq, and the fact that end of that wrong war is good does not change the fact that it is ill-advised. Once Al Queda is destroyed, and we have withered the roots of that poisonous plant, then and only then should we focus on democratizing the world.

As a side note, it might be said that by democratizing the Middle East, we are dealing with the root of the problem. This is incorrect. There has been Wahhabism in the Middle East for quite a long time before it was coopted by Al Queda. No, this is not about politics as much as it is about economics. Standards of living in Saudi Arabia and other places where militarism is on the rise have been falling for some time now, and that is the cause of the growth in Al Queda, not political authoritarianism. Authoritarian governments may exacerbate the problem, but they are not the cause. To truly deal with Al Queda, you need to raise the standard of living in those countries and give them a reason not to despair. Once that happens, people will no longer be inclined to listen to what the mullahs have to say.

I tihnk someone needs to act as world police, as much as other people may disagree. If the league of nations had invaded Germany before WWII, I think we would have been better off. If Hitler had been taken out of power when he invaded Austria, it would have saved millions of lives. So someone needs to take out dictators who think they can genocide on people, especially if the allegedly have access to increasingly dangerous weapons. The UN is the ideal group to do this, because then we have more support, but the UN is a bunch of pussies, made up of corrupt frenchies who were making millions off the food for oil.

I dont know that Bush's course of action is best for the United States. However, in the long run, this policy may be better for the world. It would work better if other countries would agree, but its probly better than nothing if us and England do it.

Then, a reasonable question would be why was America selling arms to Saddam in the 80's when these atrocities were happening and waiting til now to go to war with him?

The US has always made stupid choices of who to sell weapons to. Basically, whenever the US does not want to commit itself, we give weapons to whoever will fight out battles for us. Obviously this leads to some problems. You cant just give weapons to a Middle Eastern country. Even if the government lasts as long as the weapons supply, their opinion of the United States might not.

this doesnt change the fact that in the 21st century Iraq needed to be purged.

The US has always made stupid choices of who to sell weapons to. Basically, whenever the US does not want to commit itself, we give weapons to whoever will fight out battles for us. Obviously this leads to some problems. You cant just give weapons to a Middle Eastern country. Even if the government lasts as long as the weapons supply, their opinion of the United States might not.

this doesnt change the fact that in the 21st century Iraq needed to be purged.

But if America is purging Iraq for the reasons you are saying, then it would have been done in the 80s.

Well, taking away from the situation the fact that he deliberately misled the nation, I would say that his stated end, that of using any and all means to promote democratic rule in the Middle East, is a good thing. Criticisms by people who've read too much Derrida, and even worse applied it to something other than literary analysis aside, there is no real reason why anyone in the world should have to live under a dictatorship, nor is there any viable reason why they would want to if they were presented instead with a democratic government as an alternative. Democracy, for lack of a better term, is good, and it is a universal good.

Democracy is a tool. How you use it makes it good or bad. As I said earlier, if the people in a government, whether it's democracy or something else, are corrupt, then they're going to abuse the people of that country (which can be said about America as well).

However, the problem I have with the Bush administration is that they decided to implement this policy at precisely the wrong time. Sept. 11 finally woke Americans up to the fact that there are other countries out there, and that our actions have effects that can really piss them off. The question of whether or not we helped bring about Sept. 11 through our own actions, or whose "fault" it is, is beyond the purview of this post; I simply want to focus on the fact that as a result of whomever, we are now at war with a group whose stated aim is to destroy our way of life, whether through direct action or through indirectly goading us into doing it ourselves. We ought, therefore, to be prosecuting the war against those groups with extreme prejudice. We are not; instead, we are saddling ourselves with long-term military and economic commitments at precisely the time when we need to be the most mobile. We are, in short, fighting the wrong war in Iraq, and the fact that end of that wrong war is good does not change the fact that it is ill-advised. Once Al Queda is destroyed, and we have withered the roots of that poisonous plant, then and only then should we focus on democratizing the world.

Nobody's aim is to destroy your way of life. That's like saying America's aim is to improve the way of life in Iraq. America takes advantage of other nations, causes people of those nations to suffer and go poor. If you want to deal with the root of the problem, you have to get your hands out of other countries' pockets. It's those things that America does in Iraq that preptuates the war.

As a side note, it might be said that by democratizing the Middle East, we are dealing with the root of the problem. This is incorrect. There has been Wahhabism in the Middle East for quite a long time before it was coopted by Al Queda. No, this is not about politics as much as it is about economics. Standards of living in Saudi Arabia and other places where militarism is on the rise have been falling for some time now, and that is the cause of the growth in Al Queda, not political authoritarianism. Authoritarian governments may exacerbate the problem, but they are not the cause. To truly deal with Al Queda, you need to raise the standard of living in those countries and give them a reason not to despair. Once that happens, people will no longer be inclined to listen to what the mullahs have to say.

Al-Queda is not the cause but the result of poverty. When other people don't have enough to live on, they turn to Al-Queda and their tactics as a solution. It's like in chemistry. Electrons naturally go to the lowest state of energy unless something puts them in a higher state. People too attempt to solve a problem with as little energy and violence as possible. When all else fails, they pick up guns.

P.S. The entire Middle East hasn't been won over by Al-Queda. American TV just makes it look like that.

a problem concerning people hating us is israel. As long as the United States is backing israel, some people are going to hate us. But the alternative is let all the jews die, and i dont think that is a better option.

Here is another point few seem to have recgonized over the last few months... and this point.. many of you are making the infrance simply because democracy has never existed in the Middle east and dictorial fundamentalist regiems have ruled all this time.. democracy is impossible today.. impossible tomorrow... Just what was Europe before it was introduced to modern day democracy... all the states were monarchies and autocracies... and today they are all democracies...

Since the Iraq war what has democracy in the middle east look like... Afgahnistan has now an elected government... Iraq has an elected government... Palestine (after Arafat) has an elected government (though it did before) Lebeonon has resigned its old government and is moving toward elections.. Liba has loosend its dicitorial grip and is working with the democracies today.. and Egypt today announced multi-party elections will be held later in the year... Before Iraq there was little to no sign of democracy in the middle east.. now it is spreading .. ever it be slow but sure. Your trying to make the case Democracy is against Muslim cultures ? Democracy is against every autocratic government structure and every fundamentalist structure.. and every state which embraces it does so for the first time 99% of the time with no previous experiance with it.. including the United States.. So Why is it the idea that democracy in the middle east is an impossible advent ?

yes we invaded Iraq... to dipose the dictatorship there which the people had no love for... (had they you would have seen it reflected in some form in the elections).... Would we be wrong invading sudan and liberating them? or the congo or anywhere in Africa which is so ravged by war people simply die by the millions daily.. Aparently not.. most people on this forum cirtize America for not doing so...

Here is another point few seem to have recgonized over the last few months... and this point.. many of you are making the infrance simply because democracy has never existed in the Middle east and dictorial fundamentalist regiems have ruled all this time.. democracy is impossible today.. impossible tomorrow... Just what was Europe before it was introduced to modern day democracy... all the states were monarchies and autocracies... and today they are all democracies...

Democracy is not a new style of government. Actually, it is one of the oldest governments around, existing as far back as Socrates' times, around 5000 B.C. So, Europeans, at that time, had chosen monarchies and autocracies over democracy.

Since the Iraq war what has democracy in the middle east look like... Afgahnistan has now an elected government... Iraq has an elected government... Palestine (after Arafat) has an elected government (though it did before) Lebeonon has resigned its old government and is moving toward elections.. Liba has loosend its dicitorial grip and is working with the democracies today.. and Egypt today announced multi-party elections will be held later in the year... Before Iraq there was little to no sign of democracy in the middle east.. now it is spreading .. ever it be slow but sure. Your trying to make the case Democracy is against Muslim cultures ? Democracy is against every autocratic government structure and every fundamentalist structure.. and every state which embraces it does so for the first time 99% of the time with no previous experiance with it.. including the United States.. So Why is it the idea that democracy in the middle east is an impossible advent ?

yes we invaded Iraq... to dipose the dictatorship there which the people had no love for... (had they you would have seen it reflected in some form in the elections).... Would we be wrong invading sudan and liberating them? or the congo or anywhere in Africa which is so ravged by war people simply die by the millions daily.. Aparently not.. most people on this forum cirtize America for not doing so...

It's not really a question of will democracy survive? There is a democracy in the Philippines. But, there are no jobs and people are starving. There are rebels fighting the government in the south because they are displeased with their policies. Coincidentally enough, the US has a heavy hand in the Philippines and their politics. Much of the food grown in the Philippines are exported to the US.

I reiterate this again: it is not a question of will democracy exist in the Middle East but how will the new government act. Will they be puppets under America or will they sincerely look after the welfare of their people?

I think the Bush foreign policy is on the right track. And, I am very far from the only one who thinks so. Read this editorial, from OpinionJournal.com (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110006342).
In Reagan's Footsteps
Europe decides that Bush may be right after all.

Friday, February 25, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST

Visits by U.S. Presidents to Europe tend to have a template-making quality: Wilson, the peace maker, in Paris, 1919; Truman, the victor, at Potsdam, 1945; Kennedy, the stalwart, in Berlin, 1963; Reagan, the visionary, in Berlin, 1987. If President Bush's trip this week has some kind of new theme, the word for it is probably conciliation. But our sense is that Mr. Bush is really following in Reagan's footsteps.

Admittedly, this thought is not original: Der Spiegel beat us to it. Still, it says something that the leftish German newsweekly, which two years ago devoted an entire cover story to advancing the "Blood for Oil" thesis about U.S. ambitions in the Middle East, has gingerly raised the question, "Could Bush Be Right?"

"The Germany Reagan was traveling in, much like today's Germany, was very skeptical of the American president and his foreign policy," Der Spiegel writes. "When Reagan stood before the Brandenburg Gate--and the Berlin Wall--and demanded that Gorbachev 'tear down this Wall,' he was lampooned the next day on the editorial pages. He is a dreamer, wrote commentators. . . . But history has shown that it wasn't Reagan who was the dreamer as he voiced his demand. Rather, it was German politicans who were lacking in imagination--a group who in 1987 couldn't imagine that there might be an alternative to a divided Germany."

It is doubtful that Der Spiegel would have made these observations had Mr. Bush's visit taken place just before Iraq's election rather than just after. And we suspect most of the magazine's editors would dearly have preferred to see a President Kerry.

But events have a way of imposing both discipline and clarity. For much of Europe, the idea that President Bush is the real and legitimate face of America came a few years late. But it has come, as has the realization that a hopeful era is dawning in the Middle East thanks to U.S. "unilateralism" and force of arms. In this sense, the purpose of Mr. Bush's trip isn't to present himself anew to Europe. It is to allow European leaders--France's Jacques Chirac, Germany's Gerhard Schroeder and Russia's Vladimir Putin--to present themselves anew to Mr. Bush.

Partly this reflects political facts: Contrary to expectation a year ago (and with the qualified exception of Spain), the leaders who supported the war in Iraq have all been returned to office, while Messrs. Chirac, Putin and Schroeder languish in polls.

Partly, too, it reflects the realities of power. Europe, collectively and in its several parts, requires a functioning relationship with the U.S. to secure its vital interests. The same cannot be said of America's requirements of Europe. President Bush was gracious when he acknowledged the willingness of Germany and France to contribute to the training of Iraqi policemen. But the one (yes, one) French officer now detailed to the task will probably not turn the tide of war.

Probably the most important component is that President Bush's vision of spreading democracy--of getting to the "tipping point" where tyrannies start to crumble--seems not only to be working but also winning some unexpected converts. Just ask the Lebanese who are suddenly restive under Syrian occupation. As a result, European politicians are in a poorer position to lecture this President about the true ways of the world.

This isn't to say that Mr. Bush can or should be indifferent to the attitudes of his European counterparts. They have agreed to put differences about Iraq behind them, which is good. The U.S., France and Germany also seem to be reasonably united in their concern about Russia's imperial pretensions and attenuated civil liberties. But potentially larger differences loom before them, above all over the nuclearization of Iran and the lifting of the post-Tiananmen arms embargo to China.

In each case, fundamental U.S. strategic interests--the security of Taiwan and Israel; the sovereignty of Iraq; naval supremacy in the Persian Gulf--stand at odds either with European commercial interests or ideological hobbyhorses (the French infatuation with "multipolarity"). If smoother diplomacy, both public and private, can avert another Iraq-style eruption without compromising U.S. interests, so much the better.

Then again, if Europe continues to demand a high price for its political favors, the Bush Administration would do well to shop for partners and ad hoc coalitions elsewhere. America's cultural links to Europe may be precious, but there is no law of nature or history that requires both sides of the Atlantic to act in concert. To the extent that Europeans continue to value the relationship, it is up to them to demonstrate it, chiefly by not acting as freelancers or spoilers in areas of vital U.S. concern.

Still, there are reasons to be sanguine about the future of trans-Atlantic relations. We are in no doubt that most European hearts thrilled to the sight of Iraqi voters going to the polls last month, suggesting that, whatever Europe and America's political or ideological differences, we remain alike in our innermost values and aspirations. Nor do we believe our world views are so divided that persuasion and compromise are impossible. Pundits may differ as to whether Mr. Bush and his European counterparts planted the seeds for a better relationship. What's sure is that they were planting on fertile soil.Notice that the writer of this editorial refers to an article on Germany's Der Spiegel, which could hardly be considered a right-wing magazine. The point here is, Bush is not forcing democracy on any nation. Iraq and Afghanistan could easily turn into Islamic theocracies. However, this would be only through the democratic process, rather than by force of the gun, like the Taliban and Saddam Hussein assumed and kept power.

All it takes is a willingness to visualize a world where the people actually elect the way they want to live rather than have it forced upon them. Combine this vision with a willingness to do what's right, even if your so-called friends advise against it, and the possibilities are endless. In this case, 25 million Afghans and 25 million Iraqis have begun a path towards freedom, with the potential of millions more in Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Iran, North Korea and Saudi Arabia being able to shed the chains of forced feudalism.

All it takes is a willingness to visualize a world where the people actually elect the way they want to live rather than have it forced upon them. Combine this vision with a willingness to do what's right, even if your so-called friends advise against it, and the possibilities are endless. In this case, 25 million Afghans and 25 million Iraqis have begun a path towards freedom, with the potential of millions more in Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Iran, North Korea and Saudi Arabia being able to shed the chains of forced feudalism.


And there's the clincher surfacing once again. Democracy maybe implemented but "the willingness to do right" is up to the governments of the people. Will they pander to the US government? And if not, will the US remove those people from power?

Its not justified by the given rationales. I am against the reasoning for the war, but the realpolitik of it I am for. Iraq gives us iraq reserves which we can pull on in the future when peak oil begins. Having iraq gives us a strong base in the middle east, to watch others with.

Something I find very distressing about our invasion in Iraq is that I've never seen any justification for it to stood up to scrutiny. The WMDs thing is basically a joke now, so they've gone to the argument that Sadaam needed to be deposed.

People talk about the atrocities he's committed, but the media is remarkably short on actual details about atrocities commited in recent history. Our own government has made no precise statements as to what Sadaam has been doing that provoked out attack - his atrocities are little better documented than his WMDs

I don't deny that Sadaam has done horrible things, but I wonder if they were worse than the 16000(link (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/) ) people we've killed in our invasion.

Besides that, there's no guarantee that the government we put in place will be that much better. The US's record for establishing governments is essentially a long stream of failures, some more abysmal than others.

Basically we've gambled 16000 lives on the arrogant assumption that this time we'll actually get it right. That's 5 times the deaths of 911 in a country with 1/12 the population of the US. If you think 911 was a big deal in the US, you can be proud in the knowledge that we've done 50 times worse to Iraq in return for an unrelated terorist group's actions.

All we've accomplished so far is the easy part too. We've won a war that was almost impossible to lose. The hard part is seeing that Iraq is well governed in the future, and if history is any indicator, once we pull out of Iraq, corruption will return.

I don't deny there's a chance things will turn out for the best, but it's far from certain, and for this chance we've killed so many people it makes me feel sick.

So, whether it is right or wrong, I don't know. I do think it is a natural part of our world. Similar to a tiger killing a deer. Is the tiger wrong for what it did?
Arguably, P&E, a nation cannot be held to the standards of a tiger. Generally, a nation's government is held to the same moral standards as a human being; it is thought to be as metaphorically aware and thoughtful as any human being, only moreso because of it's access to a vast amount of human thought. Thus, the actions of a nation can often be equated with the actions of a single man. Thus they are also held to the same moral standards.

Historically speaking, the US rarely spreads democracy. They spread capitalism in the guise of democracy. If it's not capitalism, the US wants out. Let me point out, then, the glaring examples in Latin America of American intervention to prevent the progress of several nations.
The things the U.S. is responsible for in Latin America are terrible; I abhor what has been done there. That does not, however invalidate the original premise of this thread; that is, is America spreading democracy in the Middle East, and if so, is that good? The situation in the Middle East and the situation in Latin America is very different, by virtue of politics, economics and philosophy, as well as recent events. Democracy and peace isn't spreading through Latin America, but it does appear to be spreading in the Middle East. How do you reconcile this with your original suggestion?

I hear all this stuff about Iraq electing its own president, yet I never heard about any referendums to get the Iraqis to vote whether they WANTED a President or not. This is what I like to call American Imperialism at its finest.
I believe the point has been made on this thread that the democratic elections are themselves a sort of referendum. If the Iraqis wanted to elect some kind of extremist Muslim that believed the U.S. was the Great Devil, they could very well do it through the democratic elections that were held there. The option is also open for them to elect fair, peaceful officials who will safeguard their rights and promote stability and progress in Iraq. Is this not good?

I tihnk someone needs to act as world police, as much as other people may disagree.
...
The UN is the ideal group to do this, because then we have more support, but the UN is a bunch of pussies, made up of corrupt frenchies who were making millions off the food for oil.
Yet, where does this "world police" get it's legitimacy from? Who is this world power to claim that it has the right - and the duty - to interfere in the conduct of other nations? America is not representative of the will of the modern world, unlike [hypothetically speaking] the U.N., which derives it's legitimacy through the many nations that belong to it. You walk a dangerous line when you become a vigilante as an individual private citizen, PBEMO, and arguably, a nation state does the same thing when it assumes the same responsibilities as a vigilante on an international scale. So, to bring this back around to the thesis of this thread, for you, is the hypothetical spread of democracy and the deposing of despots enough justification to become an essentially illegitimate police force for the world?

As a side note, it might be said that by democratizing the Middle East, we are dealing with the root of the problem. This is incorrect. There has been Wahhabism in the Middle East for quite a long time before it was coopted by Al Queda. No, this is not about politics as much as it is about economics. Standards of living in Saudi Arabia and other places where militarism is on the rise have been falling for some time now, and that is the cause of the growth in Al Queda, not political authoritarianism. Authoritarian governments may exacerbate the problem, but they are not the cause. To truly deal with Al Queda, you need to raise the standard of living in those countries and give them a reason not to despair. Once that happens, people will no longer be inclined to listen to what the mullahs have to say.
Shimikami suggests, however, that America is more interested in spreading the capitalist economic model than democracy. One might argue that democracy promotes capitalism, but I am not educated enough on the matter to suggest it. However, I do agree that the U.S. attempts to implement capitalism abroad wherever it treads. If this is true, and this implementation of capitalism is coupled with the implementation of democracy, is this then justified, based on your reasoning a la the cause of terrorism and extremism?

I would note that this is based on the idea that capitalism, in general, increases the standard of living and decreases poverty in a nation.

Here is another point few seem to have recgonized over the last few months... and this point.. many of you are making the infrance simply because democracy has never existed in the Middle east and dictorial fundamentalist regiems have ruled all this time.. democracy is impossible today.. impossible tomorrow... Just what was Europe before it was introduced to modern day democracy... all the states were monarchies and autocracies... and today they are all democracies...
However, the history of democracy in Europe is extremely complicated. A number of things had to occur in Europe in order for society to be ready for democracy; Europe didn't just fall into representative government, it had to evolve. Christianity, the Protestant Reformation, the Argicultural and Industrial Revolutions, the Liberal and Nationalist movents that followed... at least that and more had to occur over the span of ~1800 years for Europe to be ready for any kind of true representative government. The implication, then, is that Arabs in the Middle East are not culturally, psychologically, or philosophically prepared to run a democracy.

and every state which embraces it does so for the first time 99% of the time with no previous experiance with it.. including the United States..
The United States already had extensive experience with a parliamentary government a la Great Britain; remember, a number of the colonists were formerly residents of Great Britain and had participated in the representative government there. In addition, the states/colonies all had local legislatures of their own. Like I said, in history, countries have no traditionally landed in the lap of democracy. It has been a slow, painful process, generally involving lots of killing.

Knowing this, one must ask, is it naieve to believe that democracy can exist in the Middle East, or that democracy engenders democracy in the surrounding nations, as the Bush Administration has suggested?

Something I find very distressing about our invasion in Iraq is that I've never seen any justification for it to stood up to scrutiny. The WMDs thing is basically a joke now, so they've gone to the argument that Sadaam needed to be deposed.
While it has been suggested the President Bush and his administration lied and that the war in Iraq was unjustified, that is not what is being discussed on this thread; you'll find a number of other threads willing to discuss such matters, but this conversation is more concerned with where these wars are headed in light of recent events in the Middle East, and as a corrolary, whether or not Bush was justified in committing to these wars [in doing so, we presume that the current rationale for war - that is, liberation - is the true rationale]. Despite my personal feelings regarding the war, it is necessary for me, as a self-described enlightened human being, to examine my beliefs and see if I was wrong. And I'm starting to wonder if I, indeed, was.

Besides that, there's no guarantee that the government we put in place will be that much better. The US's record for establishing governments is essentially a long stream of failures, some more abysmal than others.
Agreed. However, a movement towards democracy and peace is occuring in the Middle East, and the more recent stirrings appear to have been self-initiated by the Arabs of the region, rather than through military action by the United States. It would appear as though the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq may have triggered this. Do you agree?


All we've accomplished so far is the easy part too. We've won a war that was almost impossible to lose. The hard part is seeing that Iraq is well governed in the future, and if history is any indicator, once we pull out of Iraq, corruption will return.
It has been suggested that the quality of a democracy is based entirely on the populace involved in it; based on the nature of democracy, this would seem to me to hold quite true. If you agree, would you not then agree that if corruption does settle in Iraq that it will be the responsibility of the people, and not the U.S. [barring the idea that the U.S. would directly cause the corruption]?

Agreed. However, a movement towards democracy and peace is occuring in the Middle East, and the more recent stirrings appear to have been self-initiated by the Arabs of the region, rather than through military action by the United States. It would appear as though the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq may have triggered this. Do you agree?


That would certainly be nice, but I'm not sure it's true. Basically, I just think that it's far too soon to say.

It has been suggested that the quality of a democracy is based entirely on the populace involved in it; based on the nature of democracy, this would seem to me to hold quite true. If you agree, would you not then agree that if corruption does settle in Iraq that it will be the responsibility of the people, and not the U.S. [barring the idea that the U.S. would directly cause the corruption]?

I mostly agree with that, but our actions were based on the assumption that the resulting government would be better. But the question is whether or not the US's actions were justified. We have killed thousands of people. Only an 'ends justify the means' philosophy can possibly justify that, and if the end result of our actions isn't good, there's absolutely no reasonable system of ethics I know of which would treat our actions as justified.

So, regardless of who is responsible for the governance of Iraq, we are responsible for making those thousands of deaths we caused somehow meaningful.

Arguably, P&E, a nation cannot be held to the standards of a tiger. Generally, a nation's government is held to the same moral standards as a human being; it is thought to be as metaphorically aware and thoughtful as any human being, only moreso because of it's access to a vast amount of human thought. Thus, the actions of a nation can often be equated with the actions of a single man. Thus they are also held to the same moral standards.

OK, substitute tiger for man and deer for cow/chicken/pig.

OK, substitute tiger for man and deer for cow/chicken/pig.
Well, if we apply your analogy to the America-Iraq situation, isn't it sort of like Uncle Sam stealing Muhammed's cow?

Well, if we apply your analogy to the America-Iraq situation, isn't it sort of like Uncle Sam steeling Muhammed's cow?

lol, ok let's say it is... where are you going with this?

Erm, I thought you were going somewhere with it! Ahhh!

Actually, I believe you missed the point of my post which you responded to with the cow/chicken/pig deal. What I was suggesting was that nations should be held to the same moral standards as human beings. This breaks down your analogy about the tiger killing the deer because it is natural; nations are capable of human thought, and human moral reasoning. Because of this, we CAN make a moral decision about whether or not fighting for resources is acceptable moral behavior. It seemed to me as though your suggestion that war over resources is natural for humanity ignored the idea that humans can regulate their natural desires.

Now, hold your horses, kids. Step away from partisan bickering for a moment and just consider recent events. I don't like the entire Bush administration, but I think it's both wise and necessary to evaluate whether or not his foreign policy was/is/will be successful. There have been several threads on this board [recently, anyhow] about democracy in the middle east. Folks have been hashing it out as to whether or not it was really successful. You can find one here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=401520) and another here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=401154&highlight=wave+hope).

For a moment, set aside your opinion of Bush's economic and domestic policies, however connected they may be, and set aside claims [true or false] that he misled America. Instead consider the current rationale for war - that is, the liberation of the Middle East from despotic rule and the introduction of true democracy to the region - and whether or not it is justified. Do the benefits outweigh the costs? Does the future look good or bad? What could the U.S. and the world at large be doing to improve the situation there? How has Bush's foreign policy bungled things up, and where has it succeeded?

I think it's an interesting queston. I don't support Bush. I very much don't support him. So it's a matter of reason and pride for me to examine my thoughts on what he's done and see whether or not I'm justified.
I doubt democracy will gain the foothold everyone hopes for. Democracy only has meaning when it is earned by people who demand it and bleed for it. It means nothing if it is given. It is resented if it is forced.

As much as I respect those serving (being a combat vet myself), I hope we lose. If we win, this will only encourage Georgie and those to come after him to do more such imperialist acts. If we lose, we will lose some good men and women, but many more will be saved for the wars we will be more reluctant to go into in the future.

Interestingly enough, I find it ironic that the great theocratic administration (the Bush administration) is talking about how important it is for Iraq to have a SECULAR democracy. Can I get a "WOOT" for irony?

I doubt democracy will gain the foothold everyone hopes for. Democracy only has meaning when it is earned by people who demand it and bleed for it. It means nothing if it is given. It is resented if it is forced.
What's your reasoning behind this? What historical precedent is there for democracy only having meaning when it is fought for? And when - and why? - is it resented when forced?

As much as I respect those serving (being a combat vet myself), I hope we lose. If we win, this will only encourage Georgie and those to come after him to do more such imperialist acts. If we lose, we will lose some good men and women, but many more will be saved for the wars we will be more reluctant to go into in the future.
Yet, if the events occuring in the Middle East become trends, do you not think that it will be possible that the U.S. won't have to initiate another war - that after this, revolution and reform will remake the Middle East in the form of democracy? As noted above, Palestine, Egypt, Lebanon, Iran and in a kind of twisted way Syria are all making strides towards peace and democracy. If the Arabs do this on their own, does this not only justify Bush's foreign policy, but also spare Americans the horror of another war?

What's your reasoning behind this? What historical precedent is there for democracy only having meaning when it is fought for? And when - and why? - is it resented when forced?

Iraq, right now.

Yet, if the events occuring in the Middle East become trends, do you not think that it will be possible that the U.S. won't have to initiate another war - that after this, revolution and reform will remake the Middle East in the form of democracy? As noted above, Palestine, Egypt, Lebanon, Iran and in a kind of twisted way Syria are all making strides towards peace and democracy. If the Arabs do this on their own, does this not only justify Bush's foreign policy, but also spare Americans the horror of another war?

As if we HAD to go to war when we did? The war was sold VERY badly and on the wrong premises. There were perfectly valid and undeniable premesis to fight the war on. Unfortunately, the Bush administration sold it badly and lost the support of the UN in doing so.

The war was executed badly. There was not much international support for the war. There were a few countries with us. We had a few, like Australia, Italy and Britan. Unfortunately, our president did not inspire unity, he inspired division. Bush is a crummy statesman with poor leadership skills, thus he is not qualified to be president, IMHO.

We were able to win the war, but that means nothing if one cannot win the peace, which we are not doing a good job of. I don't hold out much hope for a true democracy in Iraq due to the attitudes of the people there now. The domestic security forces are dwindling, because the jobs are too dangerous for most people to take or stay with. Iraq will likely end up being a battle ground for feuding war lords.

IMHO, leave the Middle East alone. Let them kill themselves off without any help or interference from anyone else, or at least not America. I just assume not sacrafice American lives for people who don't want our help.

Erm, I thought you were going somewhere with it! Ahhh!

Actually, I believe you missed the point of my post which you responded to with the cow/chicken/pig deal. What I was suggesting was that nations should be held to the same moral standards as human beings. This breaks down your analogy about the tiger killing the deer because it is natural; nations are capable of human thought, and human moral reasoning. Because of this, we CAN make a moral decision about whether or not fighting for resources is acceptable moral behavior. It seemed to me as though your suggestion that war over resources is natural for humanity ignored the idea that humans can regulate their natural desires.

OK, maybe we should ignore the analogy. I was just trying to say it seems like for a nation to get ahead it needs to take advantage of whatever it can and keep the competition down. I think we still live in a world of survival of the fittest and where the big fish eat the small fish.

Iraq, right now.
Could you be more descriptive? How does Iraq qualify for all of those things?

IMHO, leave the Middle East alone. Let them kill themselves off without any help or interference from anyone else, or at least not America. I just assume not sacrafice American lives for people who don't want our help.
Don't you think that that's part of the problem, though? The premise of the War on Terrorism, and later the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, was that unless the U.S. takes the fight to the terrorists and causes real reform in the Middle East, that region will continue to produce terrorists, the sort of which attacked the United States?

Arguably, democracy and peace are spreading throughout the Middle East. Perhaps that means that Bush was right about that? That the U.S. was right? Do you think terrorism would lessen if Middle Eastern countries began to adopt democracy and the Palestine-Israel conflict came to a peaceful conclusion?

Arguably, democracy and peace are spreading throughout the Middle East. Perhaps that means that Bush was right about that? That the U.S. was right? Do you think terrorism would lessen if Middle Eastern countries began to adopt democracy and the Palestine-Israel conflict came to a peaceful conclusion?

I know this isn't to me, but I hope you don't mind me budding in. If the country provides for its people, terrorism will dissipate. But if not, you will continually have those rebels (as do the Philippines for example).

Don't you think that that's part of the problem, though? The premise of the War on Terrorism, and later the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, was that unless the U.S. takes the fight to the terrorists and causes real reform in the Middle East, that region will continue to produce terrorists, the sort of which attacked the United States?

There wouldn't be a problem with terrorism if we weren't meddling around in the affairs of the middle east to begin with. We only exasperate the problem by going there and doing even more of what created the problem in the first place.

Arguably, democracy and peace are spreading throughout the Middle East. Perhaps that means that Bush was right about that? That the U.S. was right? Do you think terrorism would lessen if Middle Eastern countries began to adopt democracy and the Palestine-Israel conflict came to a peaceful conclusion?

What makes you think peace is spreading throughout the middle east? More civilians have died in America's <2 year occupation of Iraq then during Saddam's entire reign. So much for ridding the people of a murdering tyrant, we simply replaced one tyrant with another form of tyranny. I don't see how we can build a world of peace by killing people.

The only reason the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is becoming less violent is because Arafat died and someone more moderate succeeded him. It had nothing to do with anything America did, unless we killed him somehow. The people of Palestine decided that they were tired of the endless violence and elected someone who wasn't a complete nut job.

I know this isn't to me, but I hope you don't mind me budding in. If the country provides for its people, terrorism will dissipate. But if not, you will continually have those rebels (as do the Philippines for example).
It is difficult to build peace and prosperity on empty stomachs and unemployment. Of course, as is the case in Palestine, the people simply being tired of endless violence is a good catylist for peace.

I think Bush is totally wrong in all regards of foreign policy.

He is pursuing a NWO "illuminati first" policy, and he is basically helping only his big business friends, at the expense of American soldiers. I don't support the soldiers being in Iraq, but I do like the Army. So I'd say, "Support the troops, bring them home."

I'd also say that we ought to pursuing a policy of isolationism in regards to the middle east and such, let them sort out their own problems. They DON'T want our help and they DON'T want our involvement.


Anyway, Americans have no idea of what it's like to be in the Middle East and to be raised in those societies. To think American values are universally applicable is rather arrogant and just not true.

The only reason the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is becoming less violent is because Arafat died and someone more moderate succeeded him. It had nothing to do with anything America did, unless we killed him somehow. The people of Palestine decided that they were tired of the endless violence and elected someone who wasn't a complete nut job.

I don't agree with this. The reason peace is progressing now is because the new leadership is trying to incorporate Hamas in the new Palestine. Arafat used to see Hamas as a threat to his power. Furthermore, Isreali leaders hated Arafat. Now, it seems Isreal is being more patient with the new leadership.

I know this isn't to me, but I hope you don't mind me budding in. If the country provides for its people, terrorism will dissipate. But if not, you will continually have those rebels (as do the Philippines for example).
Sure! I don't own these forums, after all... Yet. :mp5:
Do you suppose that the idea of capitalism spreading the Middle East as well is then necessary for a semi-peaceful future in the Middle East?

There wouldn't be a problem with terrorism if we weren't meddling around in the affairs of the middle east to begin with. We only exasperate the problem by going there and doing even more of what created the problem in the first place.
I agree that the U.S. has made it's own demons in the Middle East, but does that not make it the U.S.'s duty to banish said demons?



What makes you think peace is spreading throughout the middle east? More civilians have died in America's <2 year occupation of Iraq then during Saddam's entire reign. So much for ridding the people of a murdering tyrant, we simply replaced one tyrant with another form of tyranny. I don't see how we can build a world of peace by killing people.
Well, I wouldn't say that Iraq is the best example of peace spreading in the Middle East. The premise that peace is spreading is based primarily on the Israel-Palestine situation, and it has been suggested that that is the root of violence in the Middle East, and you address this below...

The only reason the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is becoming less violent is because Arafat died and someone more moderate succeeded him. It had nothing to do with anything America did, unless we killed him somehow. The people of Palestine decided that they were tired of the endless violence and elected someone who wasn't a complete nut job.
While I can admit that the U.S. did not have a direct hand in this, the U.S. has been behind a HUGE number of peace talks and has supported nearly every effort at bringing the two together; in addition, the Bush Admininstration seemed to know what was what when it came to Arafat; that is, you can't negotiate with him, as long as he's in power peace is impossible. One might be able to suggest that while the U.S. is not directly responsible for recent strides in the Israel-Palestine peace process, it has been instrumental - nay, necessary - in bringing it about.

It's 4 AM and now I must sleep. I'll get back to you tomorrow.

He is pursuing a NWO "illuminati first" policy, and he is basically helping only his big business friends, at the expense of American soldiers. I don't support the soldiers being in Iraq, but I do like the Army. So I'd say, "Support the troops, bring them home."

I find it hard to support anyone who has the indecency to do what has happened in Abu Gharib and other stories that I hear about (and no, Abu Gharib is not an isolated incident).

I'd also say that we ought to pursuing a policy of isolationism in regards to the middle east and such, let them sort out their own problems. They DON'T want our help and they DON'T want our involvement.


This would never happen cause there is too much oil and money for America's profit. And that's all America cares about, profit.

Let me just make a quick post here for the folks who say forcing democracy on other people is bad:

And leaving them with dictatorships is good? Because we all know if we had the choice between subversive, privacy violating, dictatorship, and democratic nation, we'd all choose the dictatorship any day of the week.

Lets get something straight, is democracy being forced on them? Yes. Do they have a choice in the matter? Of course, they get to set the ground rules, who rules the country who doesnt.

Under the dictatorship do they have a choice? Nope. Could they rebel? Armies in the middle east are set up to quash said rebellions, not to fight other nations so rebellion is unlikely unless there is some heavy outside backing. These people dont have a choice as it is. Democracy gives them something they didnt have though.

Sure! I don't own these forums, after all... Yet. :mp5:
Do you suppose that the idea of capitalism spreading the Middle East as well is then necessary for a semi-peaceful future in the Middle East?

No. America is infatuated with the idea that democracy/capitalism is the ONLY way to do things, or at least the best way by a long shot. I think Socialism and other forms of government work, as long as the objective is to provide for its people.

In fact, I think even American democracy tries to use socialistic ideas, such as social security and medicare, to try to provide for its people. Imagine living in a society where there is no homelessness, no or very little crime, and the government making money in ways other than taxes. These things are possible and have been carried out in other countries without the psychotic control that is attributed to these societies in American movies.

I don't agree with this. The reason peace is progressing now is because the new leadership is trying to incorporate Hamas in the new Palestine. Arafat used to see Hamas as a threat to his power. Furthermore, Isreali leaders hated Arafat. Now, it seems Isreal is being more patient with the new leadership.
The Palestinians could have elected another nut job, but they didn't. They elected a moderate who campaigned on a platform of building peace, and he got around 2/3 of the vote, out of a dozen candidates. He was by far, the winner and clearly has a mandate from the Palestinian people to build peace.

I agree that the U.S. has made it's own demons in the Middle East, but does that not make it the U.S.'s duty to banish said demons?

If we make a bunch of trouble and the people we made trouble with say "leave us alone," then it would be good advice to leave them alone.

Well, I wouldn't say that Iraq is the best example of peace spreading in the Middle East. The premise that peace is spreading is based primarily on the Israel-Palestine situation, and it has been suggested that that is the root of violence in the Middle East, and you address this below...

Iraq is definitely not a model for spreading peace in the middle east, yet that is what America is trying to create as the model.

I don't see how the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is the root of mid-east violence. What America is dealing with has nothing to do with either country.

While I can admit that the U.S. did not have a direct hand in this, the U.S. has been behind a HUGE number of peace talks and has supported nearly every effort at bringing the two together; in addition, the Bush Admininstration seemed to know what was what when it came to Arafat; that is, you can't negotiate with him, as long as he's in power peace is impossible. One might be able to suggest that while the U.S. is not directly responsible for recent strides in the Israel-Palestine peace process, it has been instrumental - nay, necessary - in bringing it about.

Are you suggesting that the peace between Israel and Palestine is a result of America's interventions? I don't honestly see what our interventions have accomplished at all, except for maybe a few political points and photo-ops. They're doing this completely without America's aid/intervention. I don't think we've either helped or hindered the peace process between Israel and Palestine, we've just been there to look good for the cameras that all the christian voters are looking through.

http://www.cafepress.com/thewhitehouse.4605028?zoom=yes#zoom

This would never happen cause there is too much oil and money for America's profit. And that's all America cares about, profit.

That's one of the myths that I want to destroy. To say that America (as a whole) cares for nothing but profits is pure, shameless propoganda. That's like saying that Mexico cares for nothing but hopping the border and eating tacos. Germany cares for nothing but sucking down sausages and beer. France cares for nothing but talking bad about everyone while smoking and eating snails. taly cares for nothing but wine and spaghetti. Canada cares for nothing but hockey. You get my drift?

Let me just make a quick post here for the folks who say forcing democracy on other people is bad:

And leaving them with dictatorships is good?
They're in the same situation eventually either way. So we might as well not get our boys and girls killed over the ego of some old asshole in a suit.

The Palestinians could have elected another nut job, but they didn't. They elected a moderate who campaigned on a platform of building peace, and he got around 2/3 of the vote, out of a dozen candidates. He was by far, the winner and clearly has a mandate from the Palestinian people to build peace.

To call someone a nut job tends to undermine his work. Don't forget that Arafat led the Palestinians through a revolt and he only rose as leader because he won the hearts of the Palestinians. Besides, have some respect for the dead.

That's one of the myths that I want to destroy. To say that America (as a whole) cares for nothing but profits is pure, shameless propoganda. That's like saying that Mexico cares for nothing but hopping the border and eating tacos. Germany cares for nothing but sucking down sausages and beer. France cares for nothing but talking bad about everyone while smoking and eating snails. taly cares for nothing but wine and spaghetti. Canada cares for nothing but hockey. You get my drift?

You make a good point here. It is a hasty generalization. But, one that has widespread validity.

To call someone a nut job tends to undermine his work. Don't forget that Arafat led the Palestinians through a revolt and he only rose as leader because he won the hearts of the Palestinians. Besides, have some respect for the dead.

He was a nut job. He worked to undermine peace at every turn. As soon as peace would be underway, he would send over a few suicide bombers.

Why should I respect the dead? Why do they get special treatment over the living? He's dead and the world is a better place now that he's not in it. The same is true of Stalin, Hitler, Caligula. Why should I respect any of those nut jobs? Granted, Arafat wasn't as bad as those guys, but he certainly wasn't a nice guy either. Now that he's dead, peace between Israel and Palestine is actually viable. It's HIS fault alone that so many died and their economy is in the toilet (over 50% unemployment rate). He was more interested in blowing up Israelis then looking out for his people, which is what a good leader is supposed to do.

He was a nut job. He worked to undermine peace at every turn. As soon as peace would be underway, he would send over a few suicide bombers.

Why should I respect the dead? Why do they get special treatment over the living? He's dead and the world is a better place now that he's not in it. The same is true of Stalin, Hitler, Caligula. Why should I respect any of those nut jobs? Granted, Arafat wasn't as bad as those guys, but he certainly wasn't a nice guy either. Now that he's dead, peace between Israel and Palestine is actually viable. It's HIS fault alone that so many died and their economy is in the toilet (over 50% unemployment rate). He was more interested in blowing up Israelis then looking out for his people, which is what a good leader is supposed to do.

I don't think that one man can be the cause of holding peace talks down and keeping a nation in poverty like that. One of the things I've learned in life is that things, especially things on that large of a scale, is a group effort.

Respect for the dead isn't about opinion of how they were when they were living. It is just common decency. And, no they do not get special treatment over the living. You should be respecting them too.

P.S. Say this to a Palestinian and he will hate you. Arafat is seen in a positive light because he fought for their plight. Arafat isn't even a Palestinian but an Egyptian.

For all this talk about democracy being so good and great because you get to choose your own leaders, and now you bad mouth a leader that was chosen by his people.

Democracy is a tool. How you use it makes it good or bad. As I said earlier, if the people in a government, whether it's democracy or something else, are corrupt, then they're going to abuse the people of that country (which can be said about America as well).

Sure it's a tool, but it's a tool that has been shown over time to be more effective at promoting the good of all people in society than any other form of government. It certainly is more effective than authoritarianism. That makes it a good tool, as surely as a recoilless hammer is a "good" instrument compared to a standard hammer if your goal is to hammer nails with a minimum of effort. It is morally good because it is the best means to a good end.


Nobody's aim is to destroy your way of life. That's like saying America's aim is to improve the way of life in Iraq. America takes advantage of other nations, causes people of those nations to suffer and go poor. If you want to deal with the root of the problem, you have to get your hands out of other countries' pockets. It's those things that America does in Iraq that preptuates the war.

. . .Then why does Al Queda say that in their propaganda videos that their aim is to "destroy" the United States? Clearly, they do want to destroy how Americans live. Now, by this I don't mean that they aim to destroy the global market economy, or democracy, as you can't destroy with planes an abstraction any more than you can declare war on a verb. But their tactics are designed to instill fear into the American populace, and the American populace thus far has played right into their hands by using that fear to 1) act in ways that degrade our image around the world, such as the interrogations at Gitmo and the handing over of prisoners to nations like Syria, who do use extreme methods of torture, 2) dismantle practical applications of "freedoms" guaranteed to us by the Constitution, such as the 4th Amendments freedom from unlawful search and seizure clause and the 1st Amendment's freedom of assembly, and 3) act in ways contrary to our stated aims of increasing global freedom for all people everywhere by doing the very things you mention in your post.

Really, dude, your "counterarguments" are merely extensions of what I was saying in the first place: the Bush administration's policy is getting in the way of the goal they espouse.


Al-Queda is not the cause but the result of poverty. When other people don't have enough to live on, they turn to Al-Queda and their tactics as a solution. It's like in chemistry. Electrons naturally go to the lowest state of energy unless something puts them in a higher state. People too attempt to solve a problem with as little energy and violence as possible. When all else fails, they pick up guns.

Did you read what I wrote? That's exactly what I said: Al Queda is the result of economic poverty. The unspoken implication when I talked about why I did not like the Bush Admin's policy is that it perpetuates this poverty, or at least does nothing to alleviate it.

Sure it's a tool, but it's a tool that has been shown over time to be more effective at promoting the good of all people in society than any other form of government. It certainly is more effective than authoritarianism. That makes it a good tool, as surely as a recoilless hammer is a "good" instrument compared to a standard hammer if your goal is to hammer nails with a minimum of effort. It is morally good because it is the best means to a good end.

Can you give me an example of this? And, why you feel it has benefited the good of all people?


. . .Then why does Al Queda say that in their propaganda videos that their aim is to "destroy" the United States? Clearly, they do want to destroy how Americans live. Now, by this I don't mean that they aim to destroy the global market economy, or democracy, as you can't destroy with planes an abstraction any more than you can declare war on a verb. But their tactics are designed to instill fear into the American populace, and the American populace thus far has played right into their hands by using that fear to 1) act in ways that degrade our image around the world, such as the interrogations at Gitmo and the handing over of prisoners to nations like Syria, who do use extreme methods of torture, 2) dismantle practical applications of "freedoms" guaranteed to us by the Constitution, such as the 4th Amendments freedom from unlawful search and seizure clause and the 1st Amendment's freedom of assembly, and 3) act in ways contrary to our stated aims of increasing global freedom for all people everywhere by doing the very things you mention in your post.

There's two ways you can look at this. Al-Queda's objective is not to come in to the US and change how people live. If that is what you are arguing, then I disagree. Al-Queda's objective, at least in my opinion, is to get US government and corporations out of other countries, namely Arab countries. This in turn will have a big affect on the way of life in America. If this is what you are arguing, then I agree with you. My point is Al-Queda cares as much about the quality of life in America as America cares about the quality of life in Iraq, that is they don't. They just want America to stop robbing their countries.

Really, dude, your "counterarguments" are merely extensions of what I was saying in the first place: the Bush administration's policy is getting in the way of the goal they espouse.


You may see it like that but I am coming from a completely different angle than you are. You are arguing that this is the wrong war as it relates to America and Americans. I am arguing this is the wrong war because it unjust to the people of Iraq.

As a side note, I don't think the Bush administration honestly tell the American people what their true goal is. I don't think they're looking to stop Al-Queda or make it a safer world. Like I've said before, their agenda includes oil and money.

Did you read what I wrote? That's exactly what I said: Al Queda is the result of economic poverty. The unspoken implication when I talked about why I did not like the Bush Admin's policy is that it perpetuates this poverty, or at least does nothing to alleviate it.

My mistake. I agree with you on this.