The argument that we must intervene everywhere simultaneously or be hypocrites is silly. It's like saying that if you want to help the poor, either you help them all at once or you're a hypocrite. Why did you help THAT homeless person, you b*stard! What about THIS one? They have a say in their governance, so I would say yes they are better off. If stability was at the top of the hierarchy then we wouldn't have a United States, would we? What does this have to do with anything? But since you brought it up, there is not hypocrisy is having promotion of democracy on one hand and non support of Hamas on the other. For example, if I promote democracy that does not mean that if country 'x' elects the LNTWNP (Let's Nuke The West Now Party) I have to support the LNTWNP. That's just silly. We can agree on something. But I find this incredibly condescending and you'd be better off trying to understand where a lot of the population that disagrees with you is coming from - rather than attempting to belittle their intelligence or reasoning. Interventions in Bosnia, Haiti, and Somalia (to start) deny your assertions of empire building. As do attempts to democratize the Middle East. Also, you cannot claim both that neocons run the administration AND that they are trying to build an empire. That makes no sense. A tenet of neoconservatism is that democracies work better together and get in conflict much less. You can't remove an impediment to democracy in a country and make it part of your empire. I am not a Bush supporter and it is a mistake to assume that supporting the intervention in Iraq translates as such. I voted for Clinton and Gore, thank you. As for the rest of your generalizations, I responded to claims about Iraq. That is the extent of my position and even there I have said previously I don't think the administration has run the intervention correctly.
My apologies, your statements just sound very Bush administration like. Of course, many Democrats in Washington today, Hillary, Leibermann, sound like Bush and his cronies too.
No problem. I think its become commonplace to assume someone who is pro-intervention is pro-Bush. But that's just not so.
You have said many times that Bush has a failed foreign policy, has handled Iraq horribly, that you disagree with most of his domestic policies... except for this one issue (Iraq being a good thing, even if Bush screwed it up), you can't stand the man! Keep D&D Civil.
I like Ballistic Missle Defense too (you forgot that one)! Oh and a mission to Mars (I'm from Clear Lake - gimme a break).
I'm a huge fan of space exploration... I just don't trust bush as far as I can spit, much less to Mars!! (actually, maybe we could put him on a anti-missile missile and shoot it in the direction of the Red Planet! ) Keep D&D Civil.
Sorry it took so long for me to get back to this thread - work got busy... Meh - I'll give you that. You obviously chose your comments carefully. I tend to think your motivation is less to maintain rigorous factual quality and more to ignore the evidence to the contrary, but I digress. I know where you're coming from and I respect it, I just don't agree with it. Hopefully I'll illuminate my reasoning better below. I chose "utopian" because you act like spreading democracy will solve all our problems. You tend to imply that all the bad things America faces are the result of non-democratic nations. You certainly can argue you never directly said that, but it's obviously the starting point for your entire argument. No. My opinion is that the size is infinite, as your own example (below) illustrates. For one thing, we were never at war with soviet russia. For another, now that we've "conquered" the totalitarian soviet complex things have not gotten better - they've gotten worse. We have a myriad of small third world nations, numerous ethnic conflicts, an increase in totalitarian regimes. Our own major ally (russia) is barely democratic as it is... So now we have a whole new group of nations to spread democracy too. That comment was intended to encompass the standard Bushism of "freeing the Iraqi people" and "they hate us for our freedom".... I totally supported Afganistan. My vehemence is not directed soley at Bush, it's directed at an armada of silly wars and operations conducted by the US under the guise of protecting or spreading democracy. All the while protecting US corporate interests and strategic resources at the expense of anther nation's autonamy. Over 200 since WWII, and that's just a quick off-the-cuff count from Gore Vidal's scorecard. Wrong an numerous counts. Yes, Bush has caused 'only' two invasions. America has had many more under the same false pretense. The point is certainly not endearment, and not altruistic democracy-spreadin' either. I can give you the nitty gritty details - but only if you clearly state: "US military operations have always been with the intent of removing totalitarianism" so that I know if you really believe such a strong and unyielding statement. Yes some were intended to spread democracy - but even those seem at odds with protecting american security, rather than interests. That's great in theory - too bad we can't actually stand a democracy that doesn't serve our own interests - e.g. Chavez, or (dare I say it) Hamas? Thus the previous point about the lack of altruistic american intentions... Similarly, everything you proclaim to be upcoming in the future has also yet to happen - thus you too are guilty of conjecture. Sure the evidence does not prove a civil war is inevitable, but it hardly makes one feel that things are going in the proper direction. Sorry if I put words in your mouth - it was unintentional. Simply put - I don't believe having troops in Saudi was the sole reason AQ decided to attack us on 9/11. That was just the "last straw" - the main motivator was US foreign policy and whacko islamic anti-westernism (which is primarly enabled due to US foreign policy...). Thus the continued animosity. I'd like to see proof that AQ is faltering - got any links? It would be much different than what I thought was ocurring - and may provide me some *gasp* optimistic opinions... Believe what you will. Your unwillingness to make the connections here is confusing.
Neo-conservatism, as defined as the benevolent use of American force to impose free markets and promote democratic government is obviously a utopian contstruct. How can imposing values, systems and business models on another country for altruisitc reasons be anything but utopian (not to mention contractictory)? The idea of successfuly imposing economic systems and political change on other countries through unilateral military activity is the very definition of wishful thinking. A foreign policy doctrine that stresses unilateral coercive force over diplomacy builds resentment and creates more problems than it solves as we are learning to our cost in the Middle East. Neo-conservatives underestimated the limitations of American power and the complexity of Iraq's poltical and religious divisions. At best, Iraq has turned into an international training ground and recruitment centre for international terrorism. Iran has defintely emerged as a much stronger threat to American interests and the US is in a far weaker military and diplomatic position to deal with them. At worst, the American failure to stabalize Iraq will turn this small civil war into a wider regional war between the Shiites and Sunnis, or worse. What I'm saying is this- every neo-conservative assumption about the benefits of US force has been proven wrong and that their moment has passed.
It doesn't stress force over diplomacy, it just allows for force when diplomacy fails. There was no force used against Lebenon, Egypt, or Libya, yet we have seen gains of varying degrees in all three countries. It is hard to determine what the final outcomes of our actions against Iraq will be, considering the fact that they are ONGOING. It is premature to say that the best case scenario is a training ground and recruitment center for international terrorism. What you are saying are the same wild assertions that Hayes was countering earlier, which is why getting agreement from rhadamanthus is no surprise, you basically condensed his points into one big paragraph.
http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/Fukuyama-2006-After-Neoconservatism.pdf StupidMoniker- if you are saying the doctrine of preventative war doesn't stress force over diplomacy then you are either intellectually dishonest,or thick. I'll give the benefit of the doubt and say you didn't realise that neo-conservatism had developed this policy and used it justify action in Iraq and for all future US activity in the post 9-11 world. I linked to an article from a leading neo-conservative, Francis Fukuyama, who is scholar at Johns Hopkins University. He provides a usefull explanation of the neo-conservative doctrine and why their ideas have been discredited.
The doctrine of preventative war doesn't stress force over diplomacy, it just puts force on the table. War is made an option when diplomacy fails. We have moved away from a doctrine of diplomacy only.
I don't know where I fall politically anymore. I keep agreeing with both Senator Russ Feingold and Pat Buchanan and I keep disagreeing with George Bush and Hillary Clinton.
So before 2001 force was off the table? The first Iraq war, intervention in Kosovo, Operation Desert Fox in 1998, as well as Vietnam, Guatemala, Iran, Dominican Republic, Korea, World Wars I and II, the Russian Civil War, the occupation of the Phillipines for 30 years and wars with Mexico and Canada were conducted through the "doctrine of diplomacy only?"
Not at all, but Vietnam was a preemptive war, preempting the spread of communism. World Wars 1 and 2 were based on our allies being attacked, as were Korea and GWI. In fact, I am having trouble seeing your point. If anything, your list proves how little has changed. Desert Fox had about as much justification as the current war in Iraq. What the extreme left recommended wrt Iraq is the doctrine of diplomacy only, with and endless series of efforts going to the UN and Saddam which had no end in sight and could not really have resolved anything. There was no way to effect regime change in Iraq without the use of force. Having effected regime change, we are now in the process of propping up the new government until it can stand on its own two feet. Going back to my original point, here is some evidence that force was not stressed over diplomacy: we tried diplomacy first. Beginning at the end of the first Gulf War, we started with sanctions. We tried that tactic for years, with no real gains and only the suffering of the Iraqi people at the hands of Saddam's obstinance. Essentially permanant sanctions were not a viable solution. After sanctions, we tried diplomacy with both Iraq and the UN. It was only with the failure to accomplish our goals through first diplomacy and then the threat of force that we actually used force. The only way diplomacy could be stressed even more than force would be to take force off the table entirely.
