"Improving America’s Standing In the World"

[kallend 1,628]

Quote

I'd recommend that the US doesn't persue policies that are overtly hypocritcal. For example, spouting bollocks about supporting democracy and encouraging it overseas and then arse kissing the Saudis (Yes the UK is guilty of that too). Supporting the regime in Azabijan and elsewhere. Claiming the high moral ground and the approving of the use of Torture. Guantanamo's prisons and ones like them elsewhere should be closed down and captured Terrorists be dealt with as criminals within the judicial system of the US.

It is truly remarkable that those who most vehemently support torture, internment without trial, warrantless wiretapping, etc. are also those who most loudly proclaim their own patriotism and support for American ideals. Seems to me they've forgotten what American ideals are.

They are the same folk who claim waterboarding is not torture, then celebrate how it only took 35 seconds of waterboarding to get an accused terrorist to talk.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

I'd recommend that the US doesn't persue policies that are overtly hypocritcal. For example, spouting bollocks about supporting democracy and encouraging it overseas and then arse kissing the Saudis (Yes the UK is guilty of that too). Supporting the regime in Azabijan and elsewhere. Claiming the high moral ground and the approving of the use of Torture. Guantanamo's prisons and ones like them elsewhere should be closed down and captured Terrorists be dealt with as criminals within the judicial system of the US.

DUDE,, that is just way too logical.. and I agree.

( I hope that is not a total surprise for you and you are not having heart palpitations right now)

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

A good article but I think he's confusing world markets with foreign aid, or at least he's lumping them together. I'll never understand why someone thinks it's a bad thing if we benefit from a trade agreement. Lord know we've taken it on the chin with some of them.

A wise old man once told me it's better to trade with a country than fight them.

Richard Cobden?
You may already know this (suspect there are quite a few economics-wonks in the midst): that’s the argument underlying the school of thought that asserts countries with greater trading contacts are less likely to go to war as more trade produces greater economic interdependence. Used to be called “Cobdenism” (19th century Manchester economics school) because the supposedly resulting state of peace between nation-states was used to justify removal of all trade barriers, tariffs, etc. – a la ‘laissez faire’ trade policy more recently.

Revived in the 1980s, but there is far from a “consensus” today. It’s usually discussed in conjunction with democratic peace theory, i.e., liberal democracies do not go to war with each other (& that’s “theory” in the poli-sci/IR/history usage of the word, not the scientific one). Sec of State Rice has invoked democratic peace theory w/r/t the invasion of Iraq: "The Promise of Democratic Peace."

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[airdvr 197]

That study estimated that close to 650,000 Iraqis had been killed between March 2003 and 2006

Umm..that's 593 people per day. The numbers just don't add up. That study has a big flaw. Household interviews are hardly accurate.

indicates 78,690 - 85,711 violent Iraqi deaths since 2003.

This number is much more believable and easier to validate.

One could also consider the 250,000 - 500,000 children then-UN Ambassador & former Secretary of State Albright...

And Saddam could have stopped all of it anytime he was ready to adhere to UN directives. Sad. Totally unnecessary and avoidable but for a crazy dictator.

[iHere's one link. It's common knowledge; you should be able to find any number of sources.

So now we're including numbers from Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Do you feel using the bomb was a bad idea? Wait. Of course you do. You'd have rather seen thousands of allied forces die trying to take an island from a fanatical dictator. Revisionist history at work again.

Here's a document that I am sure you despise; it's dozens of decades old:
http://www.archives.gov/...rs/constitution.html
Can you imagine? Idiots like me believe in that old stuff. Heck, even soldiers pledge to defend it. Make sure you tell them the document they are defending is meaningless next time you talk to them.

Funny. In none of my posts have I questioned anyone's allegiance or morals. You imply that I despise the constitution. Kallend says I'm not concerned about right or wrong. Isn't it the right wingers who are supposed to question your patriotism if you're not pro-war?

It just grates at you that I don't care about our "standing" in the world. You think I'm the enemy. I see some validity in your point of view. I think it'd be just peachy if we were able to raise our standing in the world and defend ourselves against radical muslims bent on our death & destruction. I just don't care about the former if it means sacrificing the latter.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

That [John Hopkins University] study [peer-reviewed & published in the Lancet estimated that close to 650,000 Iraqis had been killed between March 2003 and 2006.

It's such a *huge* number ... particularly in comparison to all other estimates (including the official Iraqi Ministry of Health, the UN, and WHO) ... that one kind of has to go 'huh'? Initial skepticism is warranted ... but the study and the values published do seem to hold up to scrutiny.

Umm..that's 593 people per day. The numbers just don't add up. That study has a big flaw. Household interviews are hardly accurate.

On what do you base that assertion & authority? What was the flaw in the statistical method?

Because the values do not fit what you (or I or anyone else) want does not invalidate them.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

I think it'd be just peachy if we were able to raise our standing in the world and defend ourselves against radical muslims bent on our death & destruction. I just don't care about the former if it means sacrificing the latter.

Not even if doing the former would IMPROVE our ability to do the latter?

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

It just grates at you that I don't care about our "standing" in the world. You think I'm the enemy. I see some validity in your point of view. I think it'd be just peachy if we were able to raise our standing in the world and defend ourselves against radical muslims bent on our death & destruction. I just don't care about the former if it means sacrificing the latter.

Trying to ignore the Ad Hominem attack incendiary assertions, let's get back to discussing issues ...

You've constructed a false dichotomy. "Enemy" is your label.

This is the internet; it's not the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), the DNI's National Counterproliferation Center (NCPC), or NATO. It's a psuedo-intellectual discussion ...
VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[billvon 2,400]

>So now we're including numbers from Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Yes. You asked when the US used WMD's to kill hundreds of thousands of people.

> Do you feel using the bomb was a bad idea? Wait. Of course you do.

Yes.

>You'd have rather seen thousands of allied forces die trying to take an
>island from a fanatical dictator.

Yes, I would rather see thousands of soldiers die than see hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children die. Most people would, even if their skin is a different color than ours, or they had the misfortune to be born in the wrong country.

>It just grates at you that I don't care about our "standing" in the world.

Nope, there is no problem with that position,

However, you don't take that position. You fret about the possibility of terrorist attacks. You defend the US's morality by listing the countries we send aid to while you support killing civilians with WMD's. That position is completely inconsistent.

If, on the other hand, you advocated a more isolationist policy - leave other countries alone unless they attack us - your position would be more consistent.

Personally, if it came down to it, I would much rather cut off aid to all other countries, stop all the foreign nation-building misadventures with our military and reserve our army for defending the US from people who attack it. Be an example to follow rather than an iron fist. Leave everyone else alone and expect them to do the same. If we do want to get involved in other countries, do it via the UN. They are better equipped to do so than we are, as has been shown in the past (and, sadly, today.)

[airdvr 197]

Quote

Quote

Quote

That [John Hopkins University] study [peer-reviewed & published in the Lancet estimated that close to 650,000 Iraqis had been killed between March 2003 and 2006.

It's such a *huge* number ... particularly in comparison to all other estimates (including the official Iraqi Ministry of Health, the UN, and WHO) ... that one kind of has to go 'huh'? Initial skepticism is warranted ... but the study and the values published do seem to hold up to scrutiny.

Umm..that's 593 people per day. The numbers just don't add up. That study has a big flaw. Household interviews are hardly accurate.

On what do you base that assertion & authority? What was the flaw in the statistical method?

Because the values do not fit what you (or I or anyone else) want does not invalidate them.

VR/Marg

Pre-invasion (n=82)
Non-violent deaths
Heart disease/stroke
Cancer
Chronic illness
Infant
Accident
Old age
Infectious disease
Other (non-violent)
Violent deaths
Other explosion/ordnance
Air strike
Total deaths

Post-invasion (n=547)
Non-violent deaths
Heart disease/stroke
Cancer
Chronic illness
Infant 29
Accident
Old age
Infectious disease
Other (non-violent)
Violent deaths
Gunshot
Other explosion/ordnance
Air strike
Car bomb
Unknown (violent)
Accident
Total deaths

Let's just start here. Am I to beleive that prior to the invasion there were no deaths from gunshots in Iraq? The only way someone dies violently in Iraq prior to the invasion was by some explosion or airstrike? Please. And how does accident figure into the equation twice?

Let's just say the 593 number is valid. According to Iraq Body Count's latest incidents page http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/incidents/ on November 30 there were 15 deaths. Are you saying that somehow 578 deaths went unreported? I know there is some number that gets missed but I seriously doubt its 97.5% of them.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Remster 24]

Quote

on November 30 there were 15 deaths. Are you saying that somehow 578 deaths went unreported?

Thats awesome! We wenrt from an average of 593 deaths a day to a constant 593 deaths a day!

Remster

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

I think it'd be just peachy if we were able to raise our standing in the world and defend ourselves against radical muslims bent on our death & destruction. I just don't care about the former if it means sacrificing the latter.

Not even if doing the former would IMPROVE our ability to do the latter?

Or if the former -- improving America's standing in the world -- enables, is perhaps even *critical* to accomplishing the latter -- "defend[ing] against radical muslims/[global Salafists] bent on our death & destruction" and returning to their warped vision/version of a 7th century AD caliphate, e.g., Taliban-controlled Afghanistan circa 2000 w/satellite phones.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[airdvr 197]

Today there are some 200 sovereign nations in the world. Of these, 120 are multi-party democracies. Compare this with 1970 when there were fewer than 35 nations that were not outright dictatorships or operating under the iron fist of the single party rule of Communism. http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=183759 That didn't happen by accident. I still believe that there are people in this world who want democracy and need our help to attain it. Who better than us? We have the money and the might.

If we could see through the din of the drive-by media and take a closer look at the people I think most want us to be involved.

Have you asked yourself why it's such a battle in Iraq? I beleive the possibility of a democratic government in the Middle East scares the hell out of the surrounding governments. They don't want their citizens to see what it would be like for them to live in a democracy.

We do important work all over the world. It's not perfect and never will be. Your isolationist proposal would be a disaster. We've tried it before.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[airdvr 197]

Quote

Quote

on November 30 there were 15 deaths. Are you saying that somehow 578 deaths went unreported?

Thats awesome! We wenrt from an average of 593 deaths a day to a constant 593 deaths a day!

Take a look at the data. I haven't found a single day where 593 deaths were included. The average is wrong...way too high.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[airdvr 197]

Or if the former -- improving America's standing in the world -- enables, is perhaps even *critical* to accomplishing the latter --

Tell me your vision of how that's accomplished. Short of Bill's idea of placing a big bubble over the US and telling everyone else to get f&%ked, I don't think it's possible. There will always be some person or country wanting to improve it's position at the expense of some other persons or countries. Any time that occurs there will be conflict. Somebody's not going to like what someone else is doing.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Your isolationist proposal would be a disaster. We've tried it before.

Um, we've tried interventionism before, and PROVED that it was a disaster.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[airdvr 197]

Quote

Quote

Your isolationist proposal would be a disaster. We've tried it before.

Um, we've tried interventionism before, and PROVED that it was a disaster.

Specific examples?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Amazon 7]

The South East Asian War games.. Cambodia did not work out so well when we intervened there... Laos... yeah pretty much the same.... and what is the current name of Saigon????

Of course.. that was after we did not do so well in China in the late 1940's... it seems that did not go quite the way we wanted it....

Here is a more complete list.

http://www.zmag.org/Zmag/articles/blum.htm

[billvon 2,400]

> Today there are some 200 sovereign nations in the world. Of these,
>120 are multi-party democracies. Compare this with 1970 when there were
>fewer than 35 nations that were not outright dictatorships or operating
>under the iron fist of the single party rule of Communism.

So? If they want to change, let them. If they don't want to change, that's fine too. We should be an example to them and then let them choose whatever they want.

>I still believe that there are people in this world who want democracy
>and need our help to attain it. Who better than us? We have the money
>and the might.

The same theory was espoused by the Crusaders who went out to impose Christianity on the pagan hordes to "save" them. How'd that turn out?

Again, Adams said it better than I ever could:
====================================
John Quincy Adams on U.S. Foreign Policy

AND NOW, FRIENDS AND COUNTRYMEN, if the wise and learned philosophers of the elder world, the first observers of nutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and Shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to enquire what has America done for the benefit of mankind?

Let our answer be this: America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity.

She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, of equal justice, and of equal rights.

She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own.

She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart.

She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right.

Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be.

But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.

She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.

She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.

The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force....

She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....

America’s glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.
=====================

Let us hope we can someday return to that level of enlightenment.

>Have you asked yourself why it's such a battle in Iraq?

Because:

1) they have been fighting there for thousands of years; only brutal tyrants have managed to force peace on the people there

2) we went in without a plan

3) we provided a sanctuary for Al Qaeda in Pakistan and a training grounds for them in the streets of Baghdad

4) people will fight for their homes no matter what color their skin is or no matter who they pray to

>We do important work all over the world. It's not perfect and never will
>be. Your isolationist proposal would be a disaster. We've tried it before.

When was it a disaster?

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Your isolationist proposal would be a disaster. We've tried it before.

Um, we've tried interventionism before, and PROVED that it was a disaster.

Specific examples?

Iraq in 1991, AND stationing over 100,000 troops in Saudi Arabia, which inspired the rise of Al Quaeda & the attacks of 9/11 (also the attacks on USS Cole, 1993 attack on the WTC)

The government keeps fucking around all over the world, and we the people have to keep paying for it.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[SpeedRacer 1]

The following is a letter from Michael F. Scheuer, former Chief of the CIA’s Osama bin Laden Unit, to the editor of Antiwar.com, regarding Congressman Ron Paul’s exchange with Rudy Giuliani about why the al Qaeda network has targeted the United States.

Sir,

In the dozen-plus years I have been active in matters relating to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, I have watched them go from a small Islamist organization to a worldwide insurgent movement, while bin Laden has established himself as the primary source of inspiration and leadership for tens of millions of Muslim Islamists. This process has been made possible by two things: (a) the skill, courage, patience, and ruthlessness of bin Laden and his ilk, and (b) the refusal of the U.S. government to understand the motivation of bin Laden and his allies.

Last week, Representative Paul did all Americans an immense service by simply pointing out the obvious: Our Islamist enemies do not give a damn about the way we vote, think, or live. Though any country they ruled would surely not look like ours, they are motivated by the belief that U.S. foreign policy is an attack on Islam, its lands, and its believers. This, of course, is not to say that America is to blame for the war it is now engaged in, but it is to say that it is foolish – and perhaps fatal – for Americans to believe that are we are being attacked for such ephemera as primary elections, R-rated movies, and gender equality. If our Islamist enemies were motivated by such things their numbers would be minuscule and they would be a sporadic lethal nuisance, not, as they are, the most serious national security threat we face today.

Of the eighteen presidential candidates now in the field from both parties, only Dr. Paul has had the courage to square with the average American voter. We are indeed hated and being warred against because we are “over there,” and not for what we are and how we live. Our failure to recognize the truth spoken by Dr. Paul – and spelled out for us in hundreds of pages of statements by Osama bin Laden since 1996 – is leading America toward military and economic disaster.

At day’s end, Dr. Paul has at least temporarily shaken the pillars of the bipartisan consensus on U.S. foreign policy. Neither party, and none of the candidates, want to discuss the Islamists’ motivation because they would have to deal with energy policy, support for Israel, and the 50-year record of U.S. support and protection for Arab tyrannies. These holy cows of U.S. politics have long been off limits to debate, but Dr. Paul has now accurately identified them as the source of motivation for our Islamist enemies, and implicitly has said that the obsessive interventionism of both parties has inspired al-Qaeda and its allies to kill 7,000-plus U.S. civilians and military personnel since 11 September 2001. The war we are engaged in with the Islamists is a long way from over, but it need end in America’s defeat only if Dr. Paul’s frank statements are ignored.

And no matter how you view Dr. Paul’s words, you can safely take one thing to the bank. The person most shaken by Dr. Paul’s frankness was Osama bin Laden, who knows that the current status quo in U.S. foreign policy toward the Islamic world is al-Qaeda’s one indispensable ally, and the only glue that provides cohesion between and among the diverse and often fractious Islamist groups that follow its banner.

Respectfully,
Michael F. Scheuer
Falls Church, VA

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[airdvr 197]

So? If they want to change, let them. If they don't want to change, that's fine too. We should be an example to them and then let them choose whatever they want.

That would be great if only they were allowed to choose. You know that's not the case in many places around the world.

they have been fighting there for thousands of years; only brutal tyrants have managed to force peace on the people there

I'm sure the people are OK with that.

2) we went in without a plan

Maybe not a good one. I'll concede that to you.

3) we provided a sanctuary for Al Qaeda in Pakistan and a training grounds for them in the streets of Baghdad

Yep.. Prior to the invasion AQ didn't exist anywhere in the world but Afganistan.

4) people will fight for their homes no matter what color their skin is or no matter who they pray to

Iranians and Syrians don't have homes in Iraq.

When was it a disaster?

Prior to both World Wars when we buried our heads in the sand and pretended it was their problem, not ours? Maybe when we were repeatedly attacked in the 80's and 90's and chose to ignore it?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[billvon 2,400]

>That would be great if only they were allowed to choose.

No one "allowed" us to choose. We chose anyway.

>Iranians and Syrians don't have homes in Iraq.

What are you talking about? The great majority of the insurgents in Iraq are Iraqis.

>Prior to both World Wars when we buried our heads in the sand and
>pretended it was their problem, not ours?

So you are contending we did not participate in either World War? Odd!

[airdvr 197]

Our Islamist enemies do not give a damn about the way we vote, think, or live. Though any country they ruled would surely not look like ours, they are motivated by the belief that U.S. foreign policy is an attack on Islam, its lands, and its believers.

Hmm..so we should be the only ones being attacked.

In 2003, in the Netherlands, Theo van Gogh was brutally murdered by a Muslim angered at him for producing a documentary film critical of Islamic treatment of women. Dutch libertarian Presidential candidate Pim Fortuyn was murdered by a Muslim-sympathizer assasin a year later.

Gays and Lesbians in Amsterdam are routinely stoned and spit on by Muslim youth, for the high crime of holding hands and kissing in public parks or strolling down the avenues.

Muslims in cities such as The Hague and Rotterdam are pushing local councils to outlaw prostitution and marijuana use.

Paris just last year banned nude sunbathing on the river Seine. The official reason was for "health reasons." But insiders admitted that it was due to growing Muslim pressure against public nudity.

Two years ago, Muslim Youth rioted throughout Copenhagen to protest cartoon depictions in a Danish newspaper of the "Prophet" Muhammed.

Last year in Germany a longstanding Opera had to be censored by local authorities for fear of offending Muslims with a less than flattering depiction of Muhammed.

Why don't we ever hear Ron Paul talk about the Radical Muslim assaults on liberty throughout Western Europe? Has Ron Paul or other leftwing libertarians for that matter, ever addressed the issue of the rising tide of Radical Islam sweeping Western Europe?

http://libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com/2007/05/ron-paul-is-wrong-radical-muslims-do.html

They hate everyone who is not a true believer. Their goal is domination through religion. It's not our policies, it's our lifestyle.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[airdvr 197]

No one "allowed" us to choose. We chose anyway.

C'mon Bill....big difference in military and political capabilites today. I shudder to think how difficult it would be for us to gain independence from England today if they didn't want that and we had no military machine.

What are you talking about? The great majority of the insurgents in Iraq are Iraqis.

Sure they are. Their power base is gone and they don't like the fact they don't control things. I'm talking about outside intervention from Iran and Syria whose worst nightmare is a democratic Iraq in their backyard. Those folks aren't fighting for their homes.

So you are contending we did not participate in either World War? Odd!

I'm saying we tried in vain to stay out of it, to practice isolationism and supply goods and arms at the same time.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[billvon 2,400]

>I shudder to think how difficult it would be for us to gain independence
>from England today if they didn't want that and we had no military
>machine.

How did we gain independence from England, with their well-armed schooners and sloops, well-trained troops and flintlock rifles? Easy - we had those things too.

How do coups happen now? Again, easy - they use the same weapons the militaries use. There have been a dozen or so in the last 30 years.

Heck, how did the Mujahideen push the USSR out of Afghanistan? By using the (relatively low-tech) weapons we gave them to defeat their very high-tech army. We use terrorism even today to achieve our ends, just as we did back in 1776.

Is it easy? No, it never is. The Revolutionary War wasn't easy either. But we wanted it, and we got it.

>I'm talking about outside intervention from Iran and Syria whose
>worst nightmare is a democratic Iraq in their backyard.

I think their worst nightmare is a bloody invasion and occupation, just as ours would be if China invaded Mexico. But in any case, that "intervention" you mention is minuscule - less than 10% of the insurgents we've captured have been foreigners. Of that 10%, it breaks down this way:

Algerians (2%)
Syrians (1.8%)
Yemeni (1.7%)
Sudanese (1.5%)
Egyptians (1.3%)
Saudis (1.2%)

(CSIS, 9/2005)

Funny no one talks about invading Egypt or Saudi Arabia, even though their people make up more of the insurgents than Iran does.

>I'm saying we tried in vain to stay out of it, to practice isolationism and
>supply goods and arms at the same time.

We did NOT stay out of either one. We engaged once we were attacked and defeated the enemies who attacked us. That is the entire reason we have a military. It is always better to err on the side of caution when the alternative is killing thousands of innocent people.