Washington supported both Iraq and Turkey in their crushing of Kurdish uprisings.
That will teach them to uprise then I guess.
As far as I know we still don't support the idea of an independent Kurdish state.
I'm not very informed on the Korean war, but I suspect that if I were, I would agree with Eisenhower's signing of the armistice.
I just mean it in the context of it being a proxy war.
Yes, I find these morally outrageous. You already know about our conduct in Vietnam. Afghanistan, on the other hand, may have seemed like a more noble venture, until high Carter officials like Brzezinski revealed what they were really up to over there.
It was all still done under the blanket of "fighting communist agression". My point isn't that you have to agree with the wars, but just that the context changes our justifications.
quote:
quote:
and a slew of other actions.
Such as our invasion of Panama, our devastation of Cambodia and Laos, and our secret terror war against Nicaragua, to name a few examples.
That is in fact the very same slew. It is applicable to my point in that there isn't much point in trying to "engineer" a government in a chaotic and poor nation, since there isn't much to show odd in terms of success there.
I have a different view. We don't have the same cover story anymore. We don't have the Soviet Union. We still fight the same kinds of wars, or similar, but we need new justifications. Actually, this is also the view of the more honest elements of the Washington establishment, the ones who write in the business pages.
I think the justifications I laid out are pretty usable. At some point we have to talk about the limiations of the United States also. What happens when we face three military actions that are justifiable, but we can only perform two? Or one?
What happens then? Do the leaders you agree with stop oppressing their people?
The leaders I agree with? What?
Disagree with, I meant. That's not a hard typo to figure out so I guess you're just avoiding the question.
What happened in the Phillippines? In Sandinista Nicaragua? In the American Colonies?
So you are advocating the overthrow of governments you don't like, because you can cite examples where an overthrow led to a democratic solution?
What about Indonesia, or Colombia, or Saudi Arabia? Do you really think insurgent elements there should be in power?
That hatred has a little more to do than just us backing the Shah. In any event the Shah was clearly installed by us, which I am not advocating. It in fact reinforces my point about the futility of us trying to engineer a government.
Was the Shah really more oppressive than the Ayatolla? Are you saying the hatred of a ruler is proof we shouldn't back a regime? That doesn't seem good enough for me.
Again, I didn't suggest we break off diplomatic relations with murderers, just that we shouldn't supply them with the means to do murder. You think we should, if the circumstances are favorable to us. To each his own.
You could commit mass murder with or without our arms. Our arms aren't magical. You don't have to have a gun made in America to murder.
It's more to the point that the circumstances are more favorable for the secuirty of the world. Also you keep simplifying everything into "let's give murderers weapons". Very few governments don't kill people. The issue is repressive governments. Calling all governments you want us to stop supporting "murderers" isn't fair to the argument. Aren't we murderers? I think you should stop paying taxes until we stop the death penalty and dismantle the military. Are you going to?
If not, why? After all, you're supporting murderers.
So if we don't commit the crime, someone else will. that is no justification for committing a crime.
So we should bomb Saudi Arabia? Cut off relations? What do you want to do? Publicly criticize them?
What about China? What about nations that don't support the U.S.'s policy on the death penalty? Should they cut off trade with us?
I didn't say "NO aid." For example, we supplied humanitarian aid to the Somoza regime for earthquake relief. Of course, he diverted it all into his own pockets while Washington looked the other way. But I approve of the sentiment.
Aside from that, would we trade with them? Do embargos help the citizens of the countries?
So do we go in and set up a new government? Do we stop supporting that government and hope the next one that forms -whenever it may happen- is better? Because as you pointed out, we can't go in and put in our own government. If they are overthrown, the hatred for America which follows will be justified. The only option is to wait them out.
Castro is a good example of what happens when a hated US-backed regime falls. Castro (and the Ayatollah and so on) is one reason we shouldn't back dictators.
I think your cause and effect is shakey at best. What should we have done in Cuba then? Can you say for sure things would have been different if we had done this? "Castro is a good example because he hates us". Can you clarify that a little more? Can you lay out the cause-and-effect farther beyond just speculation? Most leaders of impoverished nations are strengthened by demonizing the United States for all the country's ills because it takes the blame off of them. The "hatred of America" isn't 100% justified by America's actions and you know it. Most people in these nations probably have little understanding of the political realities at work.
quote:
quote:
Do his people really need to suffer from his government's lack of involvement with the United States? Don't you think they'd benefit, if just slighty more, from a warmer relationship between Castro and the U.S.? I'm not faulting Castro for the current relationship, but it does offer a good example.
I think Cuba would like to open relations with the US. I'm glad you don't fault them for the decades of economic and diplomatic (and sometimes terroristic) warfare we've waged against them.
Yep, them agreeing to become a launching point for Soviet ICMBs wasn't terroristic.
Cuba would want more open relations. So what.
My point is what good has isolating Castro -a repressive regime- done?
Why should we have more open relations with Castro? Is Castro suddenly not a murderer to you because he's an enemy of the U.S.? Now he's a nice guy, now he's the victim of U.S. terrorism. I think I have a better understanding of your point of view now.
It's not as simple as that metaphor. I've already responded to this question of yours, though. You say, the alternative is not to "hand them a pistol". (you of course wrongly assume we are the only ones with guns,
No. Even if someone else can hand the maniac a pistol, you shouldn't do it.
That's not the point. The point is the situation is much more complex. Yes, if Saddam Hussein were just a maniac, and his only means of becoming a threat to people was by way of pistol being handed to him, yes boorite, your sophomoric anaolgy might have some relevance.
I don't know what that means. The murder of any citizen is homicide. And if you give a homicidal maniac a gun, knowing what he'll do with it, you're complicit in his murders.
My point is you're over simplifying. A nation isn't equal to a person walking around asking for guns. There's no point in maintaining that comparisson except that your argument is "murder is wrong" so if you can frame the argument around that somehow you have a leg to stand on.
Well golly boorite, murder is wrong. Maybe we should tell all them murderers to just knock it off.
At times, maybe.
Where it benefits your argument, maybe? (But not where it doesn't, maybe?)
But wait, murder is murder. Isn't it? Or it's not now. Because it's bad for your argument. Later, murder will be murder again I guess. (When it helps your point, maybe).
quote:
No time left. Just a parting thought: The "big mean sheriff" in your example is killing unarmed, innocent people and lining his pockets with dirty money. You still want to give him more and bigger guns? Is any excuse good enough to justify that? I think it's un-American.
I thought we were talking about oppressive regimes. An abusive sheriff would be the equivalent of an oppressive regime. A sheriff walking around killing people would be a genocidal regime.
Simplifying the governments you don't want us to support into the metaphor of us giving a gun to a deranged murderer is as simple as Bush calling Iraq, Iran, and North Korea evil governments. If you agree with his simplifications, I'll let you continue with yours if you want to play that game. I have a feeling you don't though.
---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008
