NationStates Jolt Archive

"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
-- John Stuart Mill

War IS an ugly thing, but as long as nations and leaders exist that detest freedom, sometimes it is the only way to secure a lasting peace. Most leftist anti-war protesters and pundits don't understand this. They state that this use of force is always unnecessary -- that war, ANY war, is never good. Some of them, born into the luxury of American freedom, believe that liberty can exist passively, that somehow the world's natural state will always settle into utopian harmony. Others, in an attempt to absolve themselves from the unearned guilt they harbor living in a nation of prosperity and wealth, try to buy morality on the cheap by pronouncing themselves for the 'good'. To them, the derivation of the 'good' is based on a simple, yet peculiar standard: the powerful and competent are wicked, while the feeble and impotent are innocent - regardless of the context. That is why they defend Iraq instead of America, and the Palestinian "resistance" instead of Israel.

These leftists usually carry the loudest megaphones. And left unchallenged, their voices are heard disproportionately, demoralizing our troops, and emboldening dictators around the world - dictators who dream of the day the "Great Satan" disappears from the face of the earth.

However, their self-righteous messages go silent quickly when the truth of history and reality is thrown back in their face. It's time to turn up the juice on OUR megaphones, as we will never keep our supreme values of liberty and justice without the will to fight for them.

You do realize that by using the words "people that detest freedom" you completely destroyed your credibility, right?

Actually Entralla did not. While it may oversimplify the issue, it does not, in fact, negate the value of the issue being raised.

You do realize that by using the words "people that detest freedom" you completely destroyed your credibility, right?

I was about to say the same thing.

Do you really think that the leaders of Iraq, Iran, Palestine and other such countries are offended by the fact that American citizens live in a democratic nation and enjoy more civil rights than their citizens?

I was about to say the same thing.

Do you really think that the leaders of Iraq, Iran, Palestine and other such countries are offended by the fact that American citizens live in a democratic nation and enjoy more civil rights than their citizens?

Again, does not destroy credibility, though I would rather say that they are actually envious of American power and wealth, and wish destruction on those who disagree with their particular religious philosophy.

Again, does not destroy credibility, though I would rather say that they are actually envious of American power and wealth, and wish destruction on those who disagree with their particular religious philosophy.

I would argue that they wish destruction on those who wish them destruction. Many American citizens, and quite a few of our leaders, are offended by the forms of government, whether simple dictatorship like Saddam Hussein's Iraq, or a fundamentalist rule like pre-war Afghanistan or Iran. We have misguidedly interpretted it as our duty to bring "freedom" to the people of those countries. Naturally, the people in power there would rather continue without our interference, and so, they fight back.

Well, as long as we're in a quote-y mood...


War IS an ugly thing, but as long as nations and leaders exist that detest freedom, sometimes it is the only way to secure a lasting peace.

"Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity."

They state that this use of force is always unnecessary -- that war, ANY war, is never good.

"War is all hell."

-William Tecumseh Sherman

Some of them, born into the luxury of American freedom, believe that liberty can exist passively, that somehow the world's natural state will always settle into utopian harmony. Others, in an attempt to absolve themselves from the unearned guilt they harbor living in a nation of prosperity and wealth, try to buy morality on the cheap by pronouncing themselves for the 'good'. To them, the derivation of the 'good' is based on a simple, yet peculiar standard: the powerful and competent are wicked, while the feeble and impotent are innocent - regardless of the context. That is why they defend Iraq instead of America, and the Palestinian "resistance" instead of Israel.

These leftists usually carry the loudest megaphones. And left unchallenged, their voices are heard disproportionately, demoralizing our troops, and emboldening dictators around the world - dictators who dream of the day the "Great Satan" disappears from the face of the earth.

However, their self-righteous messages go silent quickly when the truth of history and reality is thrown back in their face. It's time to turn up the juice on OUR megaphones, as we will never keep our supreme values of liberty and justice without the will to fight for them.

"Why of course the common people don't want war... But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country"

-Hermann Goering

Enjoy.

Wars begun by states, and thus usually aimed at expanding the aggressor state's power, almost always tend to be despicable. The propagandistic swill about "patriotism" and "defending your country" is worthless nonsense. States almost never go to war to benefit their people, or to protect "human rights."

But force and war themselves? I don't necessarily have a problem with them. I have no problem with oppressed classes trying to liberate themselves, for instance. Freedom isn't free; sometimes it must be defended with the blood of the oppressor (and not the blood of tens of thousands of innocents in a country on the other side of the world so that privileged sectors can attain more power and wealth.)

"Most anti-war leftist protesters" understand perfectly well that force and war are sometimes necessary. They just reject the idea that it is necessary as often as the state propagandists insist it is.

I would argue that they wish destruction on those who wish them destruction. Many American citizens, and quite a few of our leaders, are offended by the forms of government, whether simple dictatorship like Saddam Hussein's Iraq, or a fundamentalist rule like pre-war Afghanistan or Iran. We have misguidedly interpretted it as our duty to bring "freedom" to the people of those countries. Naturally, the people in power there would rather continue without our interference, and so, they fight back.
But you're not starting from the beginning of the chain of events. Americans didn't just wake up one day to despise the Middle East. These nations have generally attacked us first, not the other way around.

These nations have generally attacked us first, not the other way around.

Name one example of a Middle Eastern country attacking the US in the history of our country's existence. One.

Name one example of a Middle Eastern country attacking the US in the history of our country's existence. One.
Just look in a history book. Terrorist acts are almost always state sponsored. Ergo, 9/11, U.S.S. Cole Bombing, etc. are examples of Middle Eastern nations striking the United States. It would be suicide for them to openly engage America in open conflict, I thought that was self-evident.
Oh, how about the Iranian foreign agents currently engaged in fighting American soldiers in Iraq?

Wars begun by states, and thus usually aimed at expanding the aggressor state's power, almost always tend to be despicable. The propagandistic swill about "patriotism" and "defending your country" is worthless nonsense. States almost never go to war to benefit their people, or to protect "human rights."
But isn't the original mandate of many states precisely that, to protect the well-being of their citizens.

And that, children, is called a "Strawman Argument".

Just look in a history book. Terrorist acts are almost always state sponsored. Ergo, 9/11, U.S.S. Cole Bombing, etc. are examples of Middle Eastern nations striking the United States. It would be suicide for them to openly engage America in open conflict, I thought that was self-evident.
Oh, how about the Iranian foreign agents currently engaged in :mp5: fighting American soldiers in Iraq?

The same books which don't regard the secret operations of CIA all round the world in the same ilk as terrorism?

And that, children, is called a "Strawman Argument".
How is that a Strawman Argument? I was asking a legitimate question, not attempting to draw attention away from the original issue.

Oh, how about the Iranian foreign agents currently engaged in fighting American soldiers in Iraq?

If those are Iranian foreign agents (I wonder how you'd know this. "Looking at a history book" perhaps?), do note that Iraq was invaded by the US, not the other way around, and their actions are strategically aimed at defending against a US incursion.

Just look in a history book.

Why don't you?

Terrorist acts are almost always state sponsored.

The most significant ones tend to be, yes. Like, say, the state terror directed against the people of Nicaragua by the United States during the 1980s.

Ergo, 9/11, U.S.S. Cole Bombing, etc. are examples of Middle Eastern nations striking the United States. It would be suicide for them to openly engage America in open conflict, I thought that was self-evident.

Both of which occurred after the Persian Gulf War, to name one of many US interventions in the Middle East which preceded those attacks. And both of those attacks were performed by al-Qaeda; if you want to call al-Qaeda "state-sponsored," I can think of four states that might be relevant.

1. Afghanistan - where, admittedly, the US attack could not be called "aggression," just a massive and unjustifiable over-reaction.
2. Saudi Arabia - a US ally.
3. Pakistan - another US ally.
4. The United States - well, we could bomb ourselves, I guess.

Oh, how about the Iranian foreign agents currently engaged in fighting American soldiers in Iraq?

The Iranians support the current Iraqi government, which is aligning itself with them. The "insurgency" is mostly indigenous and Sunni. And it is quite obvious who the aggressor is in the Iraq case.

Edit: Most importantly, the only attack that could reasonably be construed as an attack by a Middle Eastern state on US soil was 9/11/01, and 9/11/01 was preceded by countless US interventions on Middle Eastern soil. So your statement that US attacks are mere retaliations is an absurdity.

The same books which don't regard the secret operations of CIA all round the world in the same ilk as terrorism?
I would certainly hope that those CIA operations weren't involved in mass-murders of civilian populations. If so, then they would be indefensible.

But isn't the original mandate of many states precisely that, to protect the well-being of their citizens.

The issue is not what they say, it is what they do.

I would certainly hope that those CIA operations weren't involved in mass-murders of civilian populations. If so, then they would be indefensible.

Read William Blum's Killing Hope.

If those are Iranian foreign agents (I wonder how you'd know this. "Looking at a history book" perhaps?), do note that Iraq was invaded by the US, not the other way around, and their actions are strategically aimed at defending against a US incursion.
How about knowledge from family there? Would that be acceptable?

How is that a Strawman Argument? I was asking a legitimate question, not attempting to draw attention away from the original issue.

I believe Neu Leonstein was referring to the original post, not yours.

How about knowledge from family there? Would that be acceptable?

Depends on what that person's sources are.

Ok, roger

Depends on what that person's sources are.
Direct contact with said agents.

But you're not starting from the beginning of the chain of events. Americans didn't just wake up one day to despise the Middle East. These nations have generally attacked us first, not the other way around.

So you're suggesting that the Middle East did just wake up one day to despise America?

America has always seen itself as the world's policeman. You can go all the way back to Korea and Vietnam to find where America went and poked its collective nose into the affairs of other countries. That trend has continued to this day. When North Korea was on the verge of developing a nuclear program, we sought to stop them from finishing their program, which they had put an amazing amount of money into. We are now doing the same with Iran.

Of course, people will say, "If we allow countries like Iran and Korea to posses nuclear weapons they will use them against us." Has it only occured to me that if, perhaps, we weren't so eager to thwart these nations at every turn, they wouldn't be so keen on turning us into a crater? And even with our antgonistic, bullying approach to foreign policy dictated by the current administration, has North Korea nuked anyone yet? No, and there's no reason to believe they will without provocation. If we don't provoke an attack, it almost always follows that there is no attack.

"Oh," some people will say, "The conflict in Palestine is a direct contradiction of that. The palestinians, as well as Syrians and Jordanians, just to name a few have repeatedly attacked Israel without Israel making any aggressive posturing at all."

Lest we forget, Israel wasn't always in existance, and Jerusalem is not only a holy city for the christian and jewish faiths. Before the creation of Israel, Palestinians, and other arab groups inhabited that land. Following World War II, the western world felt sorry for the globl jewish community and decided they should be given their own nation, located at their ancestral homeland. Never mind the fact that no Jews had lived there for 1000 or so years. Many of the inhabitants of that land were forcibly relocated, and, naturally, the surrounding nations counterattacked. With the US backing them, Israel utterly destroyed the attacking forces, admittedly with some losses of their own, but they also siezed land that effectively doubled Israel's total land area, and, until very recently, they have refused to give an inch back.

Direct contact with said agents.

And how did this "contact" translate to knowledge that these agents were a) attacking American troops and b) Iranian and c) employed by the Iranian government?

I noticed you didn't even bother with the fact that the US was the aggressor.

With the regards to the Policeman issue, you need to go further back and understand it was in response to the aggression of the Soviet Union, which was never truly a friendly power.
And please, not another discussion of the evils of Israel, it's too old and overused to impress me. Actually, the same could be said of the policeman issue. And, believe it or not, America is generally not the aggressor.
Iraq is a special case, of course, when the government (ostensibly) acted to prevent a threat to our collective well-being.
As for the Iranian agents issue, it has been well-documented, just do a little searching on your own and see for yourself. I have had family there who have fought these Iranians, seen them for real. It's not really any secret.

Iraq is a special case, of course, when the government (ostensibly) acted to prevent a threat to our collective well-being.

And what threat did Iraq pose to our collective well being?

American forces have still been unable to find any evidence of weapons of mass distruction of any kind. Iraq's longest range missiles are just capable of reaching Israel. Iraq posed no threat whatsoever to America or American citizens.

And what threat did Iraq pose to our collective well being?

American forces have still been unable to find any evidence of weapons of mass distruction of any kind. Iraq's longest range missiles are just capable of reaching Israel. Iraq posed no threat whatsoever to America or American citizens.
I'm sorry, what? You are, of course, joking right? Did you ignore or just miss reports of American soldiers discovering warheads armed with chemical agents? I know it was a while ago, and the find wasn't huge, but come on, you'd have to be pretty ignorant to believe that where there's one there aren't more. And the threat wasn't in missiles, it was in arming terrorists, who were, amusingly enough, trained in Iraq. Look this stuff up, the evidence is all there. I'm on tonight because I have nothing better to do, but I don't have time to spend surfing the internet to dredge up these old articles and reports. Here's one you might just feel like automatically discrediting due to the source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html

With the regards to the Policeman issue, you need to go further back and understand it was in response to the aggression of the Soviet Union, which was never truly a friendly power.

In Latin America and Indochina, no, it certainly wasn't. In Western Europe and Korea, it could maybe be construed as such.

I'm sorry, what? You are, of course, joking right? Did you ignore or just miss reports of American soldiers discovering warheads armed with chemical agents? I know it was a while ago, and the find wasn't huge, but come on, you'd have to be pretty ignorant to believe that where there's one there aren't more. And the threat wasn't in missiles, it was in arming terrorists, who were, amusingly enough, trained in Iraq. Look this stuff up, the evidence is all there. I'm on tonight because I have nothing better to do, but I don't have time to spend surfing the internet to dredge up these old articles and reports. Here's one you might just feel like automatically discrediting due to the source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html

Um, the US has been looking for three years; if that's all they've found, he didn't have them. Give it up; even the Bush Administration has.

I did miss that report, probably because I don't refer to FOX for news for obvious reasons. However, there really isn't much concern about terrorists in Iraq. The only ones there are homegrown terrorists who blow themselves up to kill members of an occupying army. It has been repeatedly proven that Iraq has had absolutely no connection with Al Qaeda, or Hamas. In fact, it is believed that the fundamentalist islamic terrorist groups tended to shun Iraq because Saddam Hussein's government was secular, and not islamist. Most of them were trained in Libya or Afghanistan.

In Latin America yes, we feared communist-backed revolutions there as well. I do not believe, as a side note, that we were on the correct side in Indochina, since Ho Chi Minh offered the United States economic incentives in exchange for our support in ousting the French. It was only because we were attempting to entice the French into joining NATO and we were afraid of Ho Chi Minh's communism that we engaged ourselves in their stupid colonial effort.

"Fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity."

Actually, without fucking, there wouldn't be any virgins...

I did miss that report, probably because I don't refer to FOX for news for obvious reasons. However, there really isn't much concern about terrorists in Iraq. The only ones there are homegrown terrorists who blow themselves up to kill members of an occupying army. It has been repeatedly proven that Iraq has had absolutely no connection with Al Qaeda, or Hamas. In fact, it is believed that the fundamentalist islamic terrorist groups tended to shun Iraq because Saddam Hussein's government was secular, and not islamist. Most of them were trained in Libya or Afghanistan.
But the fact of the matter is that there were terrorist training camps in Iraq! Documented, in fact!

In Latin America yes, we feared communist-backed revolutions there as well.

The Soviets only tended to act once the US had already moved against the regime. This happened after the revolutions in Nicaragua and Cuba, for instance.

Soviet influence in Latin America was never very strong; the US dominated, and did so for its own reasons. Arbenz was not a Communist; we overthrew him anyway. Allende was not put into power by a revolution, but by an indigenous left-wing political party that won the election; we overthrew him too. And so on.

War IS an ugly thing, but as long as nations and leaders exist that detest freedom, sometimes it is the only way to secure a lasting peace. Most leftist anti-war protesters and pundits don't understand this. They state that this use of force is always unnecessary -- that war, ANY war, is never good.
'most', interesting, funny how I've not met even one in RL yet...


Some of them, born into the luxury of American freedom, believe that liberty can exist passively, that somehow the world's natural state will always settle into utopian harmony.
Some people believe that reality tv is 'really real'.

Others, in an attempt to absolve themselves from the unearned guilt they harbor living in a nation of prosperity and wealth, try to buy morality on the cheap by pronouncing themselves for the 'good'. To them, the derivation of the 'good' is based on a simple, yet peculiar standard: the powerful and competent are wicked, while the feeble and impotent are innocent - regardless of the context. That is why they defend Iraq instead of America, and the Palestinian "resistance" instead of Israel.

You do meet all the interesting assorted nuts dont you?

These leftists usually carry the loudest megaphones. And left unchallenged, their voices are heard disproportionately, demoralizing our troops, and emboldening dictators around the world - dictators who dream of the day the "Great Satan" disappears from the face of the earth.
Yes because troops are demoralised by people wishing their lives were endangered and dictators are emboldened when they see democracy and free speach in action....mmmm....

However, their self-righteous messages go silent quickly when the truth of history and reality is thrown back in their face. It's time to turn up the juice on OUR megaphones, as we will never keep our supreme values of liberty and justice without the will to fight for them.
Aha, that or it's mostly all in your head...

Actually, without fucking, there wouldn't be any virgins...

Without *reproductive fucking* there wouldn't be.

I'd venture to say that most fucking doesn't produce any virgins. At least in humans.

And the point is, the act of fucking, if you're a virgin, eliminates your virginity. Kind of like how the act of making war breaks peace, not makes it.

That may be, but my point is that our actions were indeed reactions to our fears of communism in "our" own hemisphere.

I did miss that report, probably because I don't refer to FOX for news for obvious reasons. However, there really isn't much concern about terrorists in Iraq. The only ones there are homegrown terrorists who blow themselves up to kill members of an occupying army. It has been repeatedly proven that Iraq has had absolutely no connection with Al Qaeda, or Hamas. In fact, it is believed that the fundamentalist islamic terrorist groups tended to shun Iraq because Saddam Hussein's government was secular, and not islamist. Most of them were trained in Libya or Afghanistan.
Under Hussein, who was your garden variety bloodthirsty, albeit realistic, dictator, Islamic fundamentalists detested aligning themselves with Iraq, but since the ouster of Hussein, there's been an influx of foreign fundamentalists from several different countries. Al-qaeda in Iraq is a notable organization of this type.

Beyond that, to say that the insurgency is primarily driven by homegrown resistance fighters is only partially correct. They tend to be less of the self-sacrificing type though, and typically fire a few shots at American troops and run. Foreign fighters tend to be the one's who explode.

That may be, but my point is that our actions were indeed reactions to our fears of communism in "our" own hemisphere.

I see. So if you "fear" that some threat might possibly happen in the future, your aggression is just "self-defense"? In other words, all aggressions are self-defense.

But the fact of the matter is that there were terrorist training camps in Iraq! Documented, in fact!

Yes, but were those terrorists targeting America? Were they targeting Israel? Also, I highly doubt that the Iraqi government would have been stupid enough to think they could have gotten away with giving WMD's to terrorists. The nicer the weapon is, the easier it is to trace. Give a terrorist an AK-47 and god only knows where that particular AK came from. Give him a liter of Sarin gas and that narrows down the possible sources considerably. Iraq knew if they supplied terrorists with that kind of firepower we would have probably nuked them.

Without *reproductive fucking* there wouldn't be.

I'd venture to say that most fucking doesn't produce any virgins. At least in humans.

And the point is, the act of fucking, if you're a virgin, eliminates your virginity. Kind of like how the act of making war breaks peace, not makes it.
Ah, yes, but you're fucking for the cause and existence of virginity, not for your own virginity.

And yes, by and large fucking doesn't produce many lifelong virgins, but for a time you can produce several temporary virgins. But that's not the point. If the original humans hadn't gotten their giggity-giggety on, then there would have been a few dozen virgins at most. But because they did, there have been thousands, perhaps millions of virgins throughout history.

You see, the immediate result must be differentiated from the end product. The end product of a war can theoretically be a pax.

But the fact of the matter is that there were terrorist training camps in Iraq! Documented, in fact!Before or after the fall of the Saddam regime?

I see. So if you "fear" that some threat might possibly happen in the future, your aggression is just "self-defense"? In other words, all aggressions are self-defense.
That is obviously not a logical conclusion. If there appears to be a credible threat then yes, an aggressive posture is merited.

Before or after the fall of the Saddam regime?
Before

I see. So if you "fear" that some threat might possibly happen in the future, your aggression is just "self-defense"? In other words, all aggressions are self-defense.
Welcome to the cold war, in which two superpowers squared off in a fight that nearly eliminated all life on the face of the Earth. Both superpowers were immensely hostile towards each other, and the only thing that kept them from going at each other's throats in a titanic war was the fear that they both felt from each other's nuclear weapons. There seemed to be one way to break the other side for each, and that was to undermine the nations and economies associated with the other superpower. The Soviet Union avidly tried to undermine many Latin American countries and install pro-Soviet regimes, actions that would have been gravely detrimental to the United States, as such, the United States undertook defensive measures to perceived threats from Soviet influence in the western hemisphere. Did the nicest things always happen when some of these actions were taken? No. But sometimes not nice things are necessary to ensure national survival.

"Drinking for sobriety!"

"Oh, here, I'll take that and drink it, we wouldn't want you to get drunk after all..."

BeforeSource it please. The only ones I know of were in an area that was pretty much outside of government control.

That is obviously not a logical conclusion. If there appears to be a credible threat then yes, an aggressive posture is merited.

A credible threat is not the possibility of a threat. There is always the possibility of a threat.

Under Hussein, who was your garden variety bloodthirsty, albeit realistic, dictator, Islamic fundamentalists detested aligning themselves with Iraq, but since the ouster of Hussein, there's been an influx of foreign fundamentalists from several different countries. Al-qaeda in Iraq is a notable organization of this type.

Beyond that, to say that the insurgency is primarily driven by homegrown resistance fighters is only partially correct. They tend to be less of the self-sacrificing type though, and typically fire a few shots at American troops and run. Foreign fighters tend to be the one's who explode.

The key being since Hussein was ousted. As far as terrorism in the country goes, our invasion of Iraq has actually worsened the situation by providing more convenient targets in the form of our soldiers, and in a clearer motive for people who, otherwise, might have simply stood by and watched. Now, their home is occupied by a foreign power, and they may be motivated to shoot at the soldiers walking down their street, or join up and train with the foreigners who have been drawn to the area by America's prescence.

I'm sorry, what? You are, of course, joking right? Did you ignore or just miss reports of American soldiers discovering warheads armed with chemical agents? I know it was a while ago, and the find wasn't huge, but come on, you'd have to be pretty ignorant to believe that where there's one there aren't more. And the threat wasn't in missiles, it was in arming terrorists, who were, amusingly enough, trained in Iraq. Look this stuff up, the evidence is all there. I'm on tonight because I have nothing better to do, but I don't have time to spend surfing the internet to dredge up these old articles and reports. Here's one you might just feel like automatically discrediting due to the source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html
You must be joking.
A couple of stray left overs dating from the Iran/Iraq conflict do not count as an 'active WMD programe immediately prior to the invasion'.

The Soviet Union avidly tried to undermine many Latin American countries and install pro-Soviet regimes, actions that would have been gravely detrimental to the United States, as such, the United States undertook defensive measures to perceived threats from Soviet influence in the western hemisphere.

"Defensive measures" in other people's countries. Were the Soviet invasions of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Afghanistan similar "defensive measures"?

And the fact remains that next to US influence, Soviet influence in Latin America was very low.

Ah, yes, but you're fucking for the cause and existence of virginity, not for your own virginity.

I guess it's kind of like breaking the law in order to fight criminals.

Or being a hypocrite.

If the original humans hadn't gotten their giggity-giggety on, then there would have been a few dozen virgins at most. But because they did, there have been thousands, perhaps millions of virgins throughout history.

...and if no one had ever decided to make war, there would have been maybe, let's see, ONE peace. But because they did, we've had lots of "peace" periods throughout history... hooray for war! Let's make more of it! :)

"Defensive measures" in other people's countries. Were the Soviet invasions of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Afghanistan similar "defensive measures"?

And the fact remains that next to US influence, Soviet influence in Latin America was very low.
You see, the problem is you're approaching this from the standpoint of the moral equivalency thesis, which is certainly invalid. IF the US and the USSR were morally equivalent, then the actions would be justified. But they were not, and a world in which the USSR stands triumphant is not a world I would want to live in.

Soviet influences in Latin America were relatively low next to US influence, true. But it was clearly demonstrated that it was possible for Soviet influences to topple US-friendly governments, repeatedly, including the once pro-US bastion of Cuba.

I guess it's kind of like breaking the law in order to fight criminals.
Yep. Batman breaks the law daily by being a vigilante, and he's the good guy.



...and if no one had ever decided to make war, there would have been maybe, let's see, ONE peace. But because they did, we've had lots of "peace" periods throughout history... hooray for war! Let's make more of it! :)
But we cannot change what other people did in the past, so we have to figure out some way to fix it, and having the decent people of the civilized world hold hands and sing songs sure isnt' going to solve the problem.





Fuck it, I say nuke everybody.

You see, the problem is you're approaching this from the standpoint of the moral equivalency thesis, which is certainly invalid. IF the US and the USSR were morally equivalent, then the actions would be justified. But they were not, and a world in which the USSR stands triumphant is not a world I would want to live in.

What makes any one person fit to judge moral equivalency? Simply beause you would not want to live in a world where the USSR had won the Cold War doesn't mean that it wouldn't be appealing to someone else. I fail to see that the US has the moral high ground here, or anywhere.

You see, the problem is you're approaching this from the standpoint of the moral equivalency thesis, which is certainly invalid. IF the US and the USSR were morally equivalent, then the actions would be justified. But they were not, and a world in which the USSR stands triumphant is not a world I would want to live in.

The foreign policy of the US and that of the USSR were more or less morally equivalent. In Afghanistan, the factions the US supported were, if anything, worse than those the Soviets did; the same was true throughout Latin America.

Soviet influences in Latin America were relatively low next to US influence, true. But it was clearly demonstrated that it was possible for Soviet influences to topple US-friendly governments, repeatedly, including the once pro-US bastion of Cuba.

The Cuban revolutionaries were not "Soviet influences" until after they had won. This was the general pattern. Any force in opposition to the status quo was labeled "Communist" and "pro-Soviet", and the result was that such forces, threatened with brutal repression, ended up aligning with the Soviets to resist it.

Synthesis: (JMHO)
There are two sides to every story. Some fighting, especially to prevent dictatorship, is worthwhile and justified by later events. I'm thinking especially here of South Korea, and what is now Malaysia, but there are other examples.
Most military interventions end up being counterproductive. All that fighting can do in many situations is make people fear you. What you need is respect. Now, I'm not saying you should seek the good opinion of those implacably opposed to you; just act in such a way as to win round the moderates to your side. For example in Iran, the majority of the people are not anti-America. Were America to attack Iran, however, they would rally round the regime, which certainly is anti-America.
It's sad that many have focussed on Israel-Palestine, because that whole thing is a mess. Not least because 50 years and more before the creation of Israel there were significant and rising numbers of Jews immigrating, along with those who had been living there in Ottoman times. So at least some Jews had a right to be there, and a right to some form of self government.

Yep. Batman breaks the law daily by being a vigilante, and he's the good guy.

But he's still a criminal.

But we cannot change what other people did in the past, so we have to figure out some way to fix it, and having the decent people of the civilized world hold hands and sing songs sure isnt' going to solve the problem.

This really doesn't change the fact that fighting a war is not the same as making peace. It's really quite the opposite if you think about it real hard. ;)

Fuck it, I say nuke everybody.

I say fuck everybody.

People will be happier off that way.

And there'll be more virgins.

Now, to be fair, the USA and USSR aren't morally equivalent.
Both of their foreign policies were morally dubious, but taking their domestic policy into account the USA has a far better record than the USSR.

It's true to say that Castro, for example, having overthrown a nasty dictator in Batista, outwardly at least was only mildly socialist. Certainly someone that the US could deal with. However, for one reason and another he nationalised an American business concern in Cuba, the US got all shirty about it, and the end result was Castro being chummy with Russia, including the Cuban Missile Crisis, being the closest the world has come to all-out nuclear war.

Both of their foreign policies were morally dubious, but taking their domestic policy into account the USA has a far better record than the USSR.

Yes, but we are talking about foreign policy.

What makes any one person fit to judge moral equivalency? Simply beause you would not want to live in a world where the USSR had won the Cold War doesn't mean that it wouldn't be appealing to someone else. I fail to see that the US has the moral high ground here, or anywhere.
Christ...

I'm so pissed at this sentiment that I cannot even see straight any more. I'm going to bed.

But, the general opposition is that I'm perfectly capable of judging moral equivalency by virtue of the fact that I'm a reasonable person. And as a reasonable person I am capable of following a reasonable standard of seeing what sort of situation I would benefit more under, through use of garden variety logic and rationality.

In one situation I'd be living in a dictatorship that enslaves vast tracts of the population (not to mention kills dissidents), driving a car made out of cardboard, eating cold cabbage for every meal, and in the other, well, I'm pretty fucking comfortable and happy. I can see which one I'd prefer.

I say fuck everybody.

People will be happier off that way.

And there'll be more virgins.
I agree.

Yes, but we are talking about foreign policy.
Moral equivalency must take into account more than just foreign policy, to determine which state was better/worse. The domestic policies of the Soviet Union clearly mark it as the worse of the superpowers, meaning that the US is the good guy, or at least the lesser of two evils, thus it is far preferable for the US to win the cold war.

Yeah, even so I think the USA has a slightly better record. It's sad to be having to tot up atrocities to discover moral equivalence, but as far as I can tell, the USA was responsible for less suffering and human misery, and the few successful interventions did far more good, plus the fact that the USA winning the Cold War was certainly miles better for all of Europe than the alternative.

In Latin America yes, we feared communist-backed revolutions there as well.

exactly when do you think this communist threat in latin america first appeared?

Moral equivalency must take into account more than just foreign policy, to determine which state was better/worse.

unless the only issue under debate is foreign policy

Even so, there is not moral equivalence between the two powers. And I say that fully aware of the Contras, My Lai, the mujahideen, and other less than savoury aspects of American foreign policy.

"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
-- John Stuart Mill

War IS an ugly thing, but as long as nations and leaders exist that detest freedom, sometimes it is the only way to secure a lasting peace. Most leftist anti-war protesters and pundits don't understand this. They state that this use of force is always unnecessary -- that war, ANY war, is never good. Some of them, born into the luxury of American freedom, believe that liberty can exist passively, that somehow the world's natural state will always settle into utopian harmony. Others, in an attempt to absolve themselves from the unearned guilt they harbor living in a nation of prosperity and wealth, try to buy morality on the cheap by pronouncing themselves for the 'good'. To them, the derivation of the 'good' is based on a simple, yet peculiar standard: the powerful and competent are wicked, while the feeble and impotent are innocent - regardless of the context. That is why they defend Iraq instead of America, and the Palestinian "resistance" instead of Israel.

These leftists usually carry the loudest megaphones. And left unchallenged, their voices are heard disproportionately, demoralizing our troops, and emboldening dictators around the world - dictators who dream of the day the "Great Satan" disappears from the face of the earth.

However, their self-righteous messages go silent quickly when the truth of history and reality is thrown back in their face. It's time to turn up the juice on OUR megaphones, as we will never keep our supreme values of liberty and justice without the will to fight for them.

Put simply:
I agree. 10,000%

"War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
-- John Stuart Mill

You've been playing Call of Duty haven't you?

Um, the US has been looking for three years; if that's all they've found, he didn't have them. Give it up; even the Bush Administration has.

You see, when you present people like this with real exidence they refuse to acknowledge it. There is no hope for this one here, as his left wing demagogues have chained him to the rotting soviet temple. He will hate America forever, and not even the pope could change his mind.

No need for the ad hominem.

It is clear to most reasonable observers that before the first Gulf War, Saddam HAD chemical munitions, which he had used; HAD or was developing biological munitions; and was working on nuclear weapons.
It is equally clear that a combination of inspectors and sanctions, while causing tremendous suffering to the Iraqi people, and failing to prevent Saddam getting hold of conventional arms and other prohibited goods, HAD essentially put an end to his WMD programme.

If there were any weapons, it is likely that they would have been found; and trumpeted abroad. Because they were part of the reason we went to war; their absence after several years of searching undermines the justification of the conflict.
Nuff said.