NationStates Jolt Archive

I know I just created one thread, but I thought I would create another off of what has been occuring to me lately:

Today, especially when it comes to the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have a duel of opposing double standards.

Liberals who oppose the wars these days tend to use language that seems to excuse horrible atrocities committed by despots and dictators in order to end the war as quickly as possible and to argue that we should not have gotten involved.

Conservatives will call these dictators out, but will fail to acknowledge the horrible wrongness of similar actions committed by US troops, whether the troops were ordered to do so or not.

So to liberals, it seems like, "Well, the torture and death of thousands of people by their own government is alright, or maybe not, but we refuse to take a step that might be needed to stop it because it's not our business, or because some other countries who are profiting off of the dictators told us we can't."

And to conservatives, it goes like "OK, we need to stop the evil dictator, no matter how painful the cost is, and even if we are completely destroying the culture and economy of another country and may be breeding another generation in that nation of people who hate us, in a region that already doesn't like us."

Gotta love a battle of two opposing double standards.

I've always found it interesting how one group thinks the First Amendment should be interpreted in the widest possible manner and the Second Amendment in the narrowest possible manner while the other group believes the First Amendment should be interpreted in the narrowest possible manner and the Second Amendment in the widest possible manner.

Nutty. :)

I've always found it interesting how one group things the First Amendment should be interpreted in the widest possible manner and the Second Amendment in the narrowest possible manner while the other group believes the First Amendment should be interpreted in the narrowest possible manner and the Second Amendment in the widest possible manner.

Nutty. :)

Yep, there's another one. Good find, LG. :)

I think the reality is that neither group actually cares about preventing torture/abuse/murder/general destruction. They do, however, both care about protecting strategic assets. Bear in mind that neither movements adheres to it's repsective position on all counts. Conservatives talk about abuses by North Korea, Iran and Sudan, but gloss over what goes on in Isreal, Uzbekistan, Indonesia, Columbia and other "useful" countries.

Same for the other side too. They protect exactly the same states, just use different words... It's not about idealogy, it's not about freedom, democracy or anything like that. It's about protecting your vassals and trying to acquire new ones with useful resources or of strategic importance that can be exploited. That is the be all and end all foreign policy by any powerful government.

That is all it's about. Anything else is just pandering to the public to make them feel good.

Or maybe one side realizes that there are horrible atrocities being committed in a country but realizes that going in guns blazing like the cavalry saving the day is only going to result in longer lasting damage. Especially when there's a much bigger and more immediate problem to deal with elsewhere.

And that the other side realizes that there are horrible atrocities being committed in a country but kept quiet about it while that country was our strategic ally, and then brought up those atrocities as convenient justifications to go in guns blazing like the cavalry saving the day when that country was no longer useful to us as an ally. Even though there's a much bigger and more immediate problem to deal with elsewhere.

You don't need to look further than the history of the United States' relationship with Iraq to figure this out yourself.

And to conservatives, it goes like "OK, we need to stop the evil dictator, no matter how painful the cost is, and even if we are completely destroying the culture and economy of another country and may be breeding another generation in that nation of people who hate us, in a region that already doesn't like us."

Except that's not the reason we went into Iraq or Afghanistan. We're not going into Burma and we're not going into Zimbabwe.

Except that's not the reason we went into Iraq or Afghanistan. We're not going into Burma and we're not going into Zimbabwe We went into Iraq for oil, or at least I hope we did or the whole thing was a waste of time. Afghanistan harboured Al Qaida terrorists, some of whom arranged and participated in the September 11th attacks and July 7th attacks, as well as many others.

Invading Iraq and Afghanistan have there advantages for us: getting oil, removing al Qaida and putting a large dent in the opium/heroin trade. Invading Burma and Zimbabwe would have no benefit to us, so there is no point in risking our soldiers lives and spending billions of Pounds/Dollars/Euros in taking part on those operations.

I think that’s what all western governments must be thinking, but saying that directly would probably lose them the next election.

Conservatives will call these dictators out, but will fail to acknowledge the horrible wrongness of similar actions committed by US troops, whether the troops were ordered to do so or not. I think im an American conservative then

So to liberals, it seems like, "Well, the torture and death of thousands of people by their own government is alright, or maybe not, but we refuse to take a step that might be needed to stop it because it's not our business, or because some other countries who are profiting off of the dictators told us we can't."

And to conservatives, it goes like "OK, we need to stop the evil dictator, no matter how painful the cost is, and even if we are completely destroying the culture and economy of another country and may be breeding another generation in that nation of people who hate us, in a region that already doesn't like us."

Both of these are straw men. Plenty of liberals support humanitarian intervention sometimes. Plenty of conservatives would oppose the overthrow of dictators sometimes. Indeed, humanitarian intervention is not obviously conservative in any sense--Iraq is an exception, because humanitarian reasons for the war were so clearly added on as a convenient after-the-fact excuse for a war that was justified in terms of national security.

I've always found it interesting how one group thinks the First Amendment should be interpreted in the widest possible manner and the Second Amendment in the narrowest possible manner while the other group believes the First Amendment should be interpreted in the narrowest possible manner and the Second Amendment in the widest possible manner.

Two things.

First, the simple truth of the matter is that liberal advocacy of freedom of speech and conservative advocacy of unrestricted (or weakly restricted) gun ownership is not rooted in an interpretation of the Bill of Rights at all. It's not clear why it should be.

Second, even ignoring all external reasons to lean one way or another, the liberal position has a logic to it. Protecting free speech is not obviously a point of tension: we can imagine a perfectly decent society where people can say pretty much what they want. Protecting the ownership of arms certainly is: to use the ultimate reductio ad absurdum, nobody wants private citizens owning nukes.

It makes much more sense to interpret the First Amendment widely than the Second Amendment, because the Second Amendment, by its very nature, eschews a wide interpretation.

This just points to a rather frustrating dilemma about what to do about tyrants, on which liberals and conservatives generally seem to fall on two opposing sides.

A nation could invade, visiting terribly calamity and bloodshed upon another nation uninvited, and risk all the long-term damage. It's probably pretty hard to appreciate someone's nation-building efforts if your sleep is interrupted by exploding bombs and the thought that a simple pilot error might render you collateral damage in an instant.

Or a nation could not invade, perhaps imposing sanctions. The problem with imposing sanctions on a despot is that the despot's power isn't quite connected to the suffering of his or her people. Thus, the despot can just shift the burden of suffering on to the people and blame the sanctioners for the problems. The only hope is that the sanctions might increase the hardship of the people such that they rise up against the tyrant.

So, you see, I think the problem is that the solutions we have always seem to force the burden of suffering on the innocent, hence the apparent absurdity and tragedy of either position. What the solution is, I don't know. I just suspect the world is an intractable mess and will always be so.

Just remind those involved of Bush's support against what he calls the dictatorship of relativism. That'll shut everyone up :p

Except that's not the reason we went into Iraq or Afghanistan. We're not going into Burma and we're not going into Zimbabwe.

Heh my family, having fought with the Rhodesian Army in the Bush War, can tell you first hand that we are not going to over throw Mugabe since we bloody helped put the bastard in power! Him and Canaan Banana *grumbles*

Heh my family, having fought with the Rhodesian Army in the Bush War, can tell you first hand that we are not going to over throw Mugabe since we bloody helped put the bastard in power! Him and Canaan Banana *grumbles*
I'd love to take out Mugabe. But we all know that this would just make him into a martyr, and even worse men such as Joseph Chinotimba would use it as an excuse to keep ZANU-PF in power forever.

I'd love to take out Mugabe. But we all know that this would just make him into a martyr, and even worse men such as Joseph Chinotimba would use it as an excuse to keep ZANU-PF in power forever.

I know :(

I would love to break out my old Rhodesian Light Infantry uniform and whip the ZANU-PF in battle, one last time....

if you are amused (or dismayed) by polarized politics (and like to make great debate points) you should jot down some statements by both sides about the war, the economy, terrorism, etc and see how they switch sides when barack obama is elected in november.

when the war becomes the democrat's war the republicans will find that they hate it, its run the wrong way and we need to get out NOW. the democrats will find that we need to slow down and make sure that iraq is stable before we get out.

the republicans will find that the price of gas is OUTRAGEOUS and the president should take firm action to lower the price. the democrats will find that its all market forces that are out of the president's control.

et cetera

Heh my family, having fought with the Rhodesian Army in the Bush War, can tell you first hand that we are not going to over throw Mugabe since we bloody helped put the bastard in power! Him and Canaan Banana *grumbles*

If "we" refers to people like your family, you're correct.

I know :(

I would love to break out my old Rhodesian Light Infantry uniform and whip the ZANU-PF in battle, one last time....
The Incredibles?

Some respect for them, even if the government controlling them was racist.

If "we" refers to people like your family, you're correct.

We refers to the British and American governments. Though my family would love nothing more than to go back to war with that son of a bitch. I know I'd be quite glad to fight him.

The Incredibles?

Some respect for them, even if the government controlling them was racist.

We'll not have that debate here, but it was anything but racist. A final word though: Ian Smith explained quite vehemently that he was going to give the Africans as much freedom as the whites, which they deserved, but slowly and over time. Because men who aren't used to freedom misuse it. Ergo, the Liberals in Parliament declare the war over, the Africans get the vote, and they turn it over to Robert Mugabe. I rest my case. Ian Smith, right again.

If you want to have a debate on this start a new thread. :)

its a good thing we are not at war in Iraq or Afghanistan then :)

removing al Qaida and putting a large dent in the opium/heroin trade.

this is an odd myth I've started to encounter that somehow puts that although heroin production in Afghanistan is higher than ever before it is still a sign that heroin production is being stopped (which it is not and not efforts are being made against it)

I would love to break out my old Rhodesian Light Infantry uniform and whip the ZANU-PF in battle, one last time....

:eek:

Perhaps persuing a hugely controversial policy of not opressing 6 million people would have been better. Then it probably wouldn't have ended the way it did.

*points to post above Sirmomo's*

Again, I rest my case on what I said there.

We refers to the British and American governments. Though my family would love nothing more than to go back to war with that son of a bitch. I know I'd be quite glad to fight him.

Perhaps persuing a hugely controversial policy of not opressing 6 million people would have been better. Then it probably wouldn't have ended the way it did.

We'll not have that debate here, but it was anything but racist. A final word though: Ian Smith explained quite vehemently that he was going to give the Africans as much freedom as the whites, which they deserved, but slowly and over time. Because men who aren't used to freedom misuse it. Ergo, the Liberals in Parliament declare the war over, the Africans get the vote, and they turn it over to Robert Mugabe. I rest my case. Ian Smith, right again.

If you want to have a debate on this start a new thread. :)
Eh just to end this with the other side's views : It was no South Africa, but you couldn't say it was "anything but racist".

Maybe we probably should have a new topic on it, mind, so as not to derail the topic any more :p

*points to post above Sirmomo's*

Again, I rest my case on what I said there.

That wasn't the reaction of people unused to power. That was the reaction of people used to being oppressed. Ian Smith is responsible to a large degree for everything that happened during his time and after.

its a good thing we are not at war in Iraq or Afghanistan then :)
Yeah, we've been at peace for a good few years now.

Yeah, we've been at peace for a good few years now.

I think its a tad strange to call Gulf war II even a war much less so the conflict in Afghanistan seeing as how it was much more an overthrow by the Northern alliance with western support than anything

I know :(

I would love to break out my old Rhodesian Light Infantry uniform and whip the ZANU-PF in battle, one last time....

Good man.:)

I know I just created one thread, but I thought I would create another off of what has been occuring to me lately:

Today, especially when it comes to the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have a duel of opposing double standards.

Liberals who oppose the wars these days tend to use language that seems to excuse horrible atrocities committed by despots and dictators in order to end the war as quickly as possible and to argue that we should not have gotten involved.

Conservatives will call these dictators out, but will fail to acknowledge the horrible wrongness of similar actions committed by US troops, whether the troops were ordered to do so or not.

So to liberals, it seems like, "Well, the torture and death of thousands of people by their own government is alright, or maybe not, but we refuse to take a step that might be needed to stop it because it's not our business, or because some other countries who are profiting off of the dictators told us we can't."

And to conservatives, it goes like "OK, we need to stop the evil dictator, no matter how painful the cost is, and even if we are completely destroying the culture and economy of another country and may be breeding another generation in that nation of people who hate us, in a region that already doesn't like us."

Gotta love a battle of two opposing double standards.

I've got to hand it to you, that pretty much brilliantly sums up the reality of the anti-war vs. pro-war stand-off of today. These double standards are really quite bothersome to me, and is why I've been so disenchanted with the majority of the anti-war crowd.

...eschews...

Gesundheit. :)

if you are amused (or dismayed) by polarized politics (and like to make great debate points) you should jot down some statements by both sides about the war, the economy, terrorism, etc and see how they switch sides when barack obama is elected in november.

when the war becomes the democrat's war the republicans will find that they hate it, its run the wrong way and we need to get out NOW. the democrats will find that we need to slow down and make sure that iraq is stable before we get out.

the republicans will find that the price of gas is OUTRAGEOUS and the president should take firm action to lower the price. the democrats will find that its all market forces that are out of the president's control.

et cetera
Damn straight. We could win money on that bet, if we could find anyone who'd bet against it.

I think its a tad strange to call Gulf war II even a war much less so the conflict in Afghanistan seeing as how it was much more an overthrow by the Northern alliance with western support than anything
Indeed, but they were both still wars, considering that troops were deployed from several nations, although one needs much less than that to call an event a "war". Fighting was over quickly, but they were still wars. It tends to be decided by the powers that fought them, like the Malayan Emergency being called an "Emergency" rather than a war, even though it really was one.

I know I just created one thread, but I thought I would create another off of what has been occuring to me lately:
Today, especially when it comes to the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have a duel of opposing double standards....Gotta love a battle of two opposing double standards.

And you say all that to say...what, exactly? That people are inconsistent? That they tend to skew points of view to fit their pre-conceived notions? That they pick the bits of information they like and let the rest go? None of that is exactly breaking news.

Invading Iraq and Afghanistan have there advantages for us: getting oil,
Yeah, that's why gas is $1.5/gallon now in US.

Yeah, that's why gas is $1.5/gallon now in US.

you know, our having completely screwed the pooch in iraq isnt evidence that we never had the intention of cheap oil.

consider all of bush's other stated goals "uniter not divider", "not being an agent of regime change", etc. those didnt work out too well either but that was still his intention.

Or maybe one side realizes that there are horrible atrocities being committed in a country but realizes that going in guns blazing like the cavalry saving the day is only going to result in longer lasting damage. Especially when there's a much bigger and more immediate problem to deal with elsewhere.

And that the other side realizes that there are horrible atrocities being committed in a country but kept quiet about it while that country was our strategic ally, and then brought up those atrocities as convenient justifications to go in guns blazing like the cavalry saving the day when that country was no longer useful to us as an ally. Even though there's a much bigger and more immediate problem to deal with elsewhere.

You don't need to look further than the history of the United States' relationship with Iraq to figure this out yourself.

Why hasn't anyone been paying attention to this? It sums things up pretty well.

I know I just created one thread, but I thought I would create another off of what has been occuring to me lately:

Today, especially when it comes to the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have a duel of opposing double standards.

Liberals who oppose the wars these days tend to use language that seems to excuse horrible atrocities committed by despots and dictators in order to end the war as quickly as possible and to argue that we should not have gotten involved.

Conservatives will call these dictators out, but will fail to acknowledge the horrible wrongness of similar actions committed by US troops, whether the troops were ordered to do so or not.

So to liberals, it seems like, "Well, the torture and death of thousands of people by their own government is alright, or maybe not, but we refuse to take a step that might be needed to stop it because it's not our business, or because some other countries who are profiting off of the dictators told us we can't."

And to conservatives, it goes like "OK, we need to stop the evil dictator, no matter how painful the cost is, and even if we are completely destroying the culture and economy of another country and may be breeding another generation in that nation of people who hate us, in a region that already doesn't like us."

Gotta love a battle of two opposing double standards.

No. Liberals never said that governments torturing their own people is OK. What we said was that in the particular case of Iraq the particular policy chosen by Dubya was only going to make problems worse. Worse for the US, worse for the Iraqis, and worse for the rest of the world.

The only people who have benefited from the Iraq war are Dubya and his Oil drilling, arms dealing, and mercenary corporation friends.

Also, the actions he took for which he was tried were not simply his indiscriminately wiping out civilians because he's a psycho. He was fighting a civil war that we provoked with weapons that we gave him for the purpose of fighting to keep control his country. IOW, exactly as he used them. Every crime he committed, we were complicit in. This means that however badly he may have deserved to be removed from office for things we encouraged him to do, we were not the people to do it.

Also, those atrocities were committed about 20 years ago. Iraq has been mostly stable since. If we were concerned with atrocities, as the saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. We could have intervened in the Sudan and prevented a genocide. But we didn't.

Clearly atrocities had nothing to do with Bush's motivation for going to war.
a) He didn't say anything about it when making the case for war. He only said that after all his other cases for war were exposed as outright lies.
b) He doesn't care about atrocities being committed in other countries like Sudan.
c) When asked about the atrocities committed by the repressive government of China he said "they have the style of government that is appropriate to their level of economic development."

Liberals who oppose the war do not use the language you describe. Conservatives lying about liberals use the language you describe.

Yeah, that's why gas is $1.5/gallon now in US.

you seem to be confused about who the resource grab was supposed to be good for...