11-30-2006, 05:10 PM | #41 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
As for comparing the Sudan to Iraq, those are also two different issues. If the end result is to maximize human rights in the area, engaging in Sudan is clear, to me. It doesn't require toppling a government, replacing it with a puppet government, and won't destabilize the region, thereby emperiling more people. In fact, it could bring more stability to the region. In Afghanistan, we were attacked, and our need to preserve our own security demanded a response. In Iraq, our security did not demand an invasion, and later Bush (and many others, like yourself if I recall correctly), then tried to make it sound like a humanitarian issue. No question Sadaam was brutal, but you also have to calculate the costs to Iraqis of removing Sadaam. As we have discussed before, I think the clear outcome was instability in the region which is now heading towards full blown civil war (and millions of deaths, along with more contempt for the US). There are a lot of factors at play in each decision. |
|
11-30-2006, 05:19 PM | #42 | |
Senior Member
|
Quote:
It's hard to feel bad for someone so deliberately intellectually dishonest.
__________________
Masquerading as Cougarguards very own genius dumbass since 05'. |
|
11-30-2006, 05:46 PM | #43 |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
To the extent, I have misinterpreted your position, I apologize. My take on your position was based on past conversations and on your description of my approach to Darwinian. From that, I derived you sympathized with the non-sensical approach to foreign policy. Of course, there are many nonsensical approach, but only a few advocate assistance not-aligned with one's national interests.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
11-30-2006, 06:22 PM | #44 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Bluth Home
Posts: 3,877
|
Quote:
Quote:
Your points about toppling a government are not germaine to what we are talking about. In Iraq we sucessfully toppled the government, it is the aftermath that is a disaster. In the Sudan, the disaster already exists. So it is apples to apples to ask how we will be recieved in a power vaccum where there is currently a sectarian civil war ongoing and what, if anything, we will or can do to alter the vacuum. If we don't try to set up a "puppet government" then all we are doing is forestalling the resumption of hostilities that will inevitably follow when we leave. Why would you believe that we can affect any permanent solution in Darfur, and if you do not, why would you willing to expend your taxes and the lives of other there? Maybe you don't. Quote:
Quote:
Upon finding no WMD, the focus of the argument changed (for me and others) to the idea that we had now "broken and bought" Iraq, so to speak, and that it would be both be wrong and against our interests to abandon it so as to leave it worse, both for Iraqis and for us, than when we found it. What I, and apparently those who should have known better, underestimated was our ability to stabilize a state that had only been prevented from having civil war by Saddam's (a Sunni) ability to subjucate and oppress the Shia majority. I underestimated the thirst on each side to re-fight that war. I had assumed that they would welcome an opportunity for republican government. So far I was wrong. I don't think that outcome was ever "clear" as you say and is only so in hind sight, but yes we have already discussed that. I think that if you want to analyse any of this from a purely humanitarian perspective, then I would actually agree that we could impose ourselves in Darfur and as long as we are there the humanitarian interests of the non-Baggara peoples will be advanced. Mean while, US troops will probably die and Janjaweed will probably die and, no doubt, the White House will be picked by people carrying signs saying "The Janjaweed never Attacked Us!" and Cindy Sheehan will appear to explain who W and his oil buddies are enriched by all of this. I'm not really exaggerating much. Since we are calculating costs, as you suggest, I think it is fair to wonder why one US Solider ought to die in the Sudan when we have no interest there at all.
__________________
The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. -Galileo |
||||
11-30-2006, 06:30 PM | #45 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Bluth Home
Posts: 3,877
|
Quote:
2. I was not characterizing your position, just making an observation about the beliefs of some based on a comment Archaea had made. 3. When I erect a strawman you will never know it or see it coming because I will have used all of my evil lawyer powers to disguise it. BWAHAHAHAHAH!
__________________
The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. -Galileo |
|
12-01-2006, 05:15 AM | #46 | |||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Cali Coug; 12-01-2006 at 05:20 AM. |
|||||||
12-01-2006, 04:38 PM | #47 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
Who appointed us God of the world? We have an interest in law and justice being enforced? Do you actually believe this to be a tenet of foreign policy?
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
12-01-2006, 06:11 PM | #48 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Sure we do. We have "an interest." That interest does not always override other interests, but it is an interest and one that we have historically viewed as important.
|
12-01-2006, 06:16 PM | #49 |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
And there we part company, and that is part of the failed foreign policy of the ignominious President Jimmy Carter.
Foreign policy is policy designed to address how your country interacts and protects its interests. Nations failing to protect and primarily to address its interests fail. I can't see it any more clearly than that. From the beginning of time, no successful culture has ever believed or conducted itself in that manner. As learned as you are, you come up with some doozies. Study the Mongols, China, Russia, Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Great Britain, Minoans, and none of those cultures ever adopted that point of view. Other than naivete, what makes you believe that perspective is valid? How could it relate to commerce? It's akin to stating that Standard Oil's purpose should be to promote solar power and to disregard its duties to its shareholders.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
12-01-2006, 06:59 PM | #50 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
You are failing to see that promoting law and order and human rights can also promote selfish interests. Countries that observe law, order and human rights also tend to be more stable economically and, thus, better trading partners. They also pose less of a threat to our security interests. Same thing with BP, for example, who is spending billions of dollars on finding alternatives to oil. It is great for the world that they do it, and it is also great for them because then they will have a product that they can profit from at the end. Another example: dolphin safe tuna. People got angry that tuna nets were killing dolphins, so corporations made their nets dolphin safe. You almost can't buy tuna today that doesn't say "dolphin safe" on the label. They did something good at considerable expense which then came back to be beneficial for them in the end (by attracting customers again). |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|