It's called "failure"

[blackpriester]

Positive Remark

I just wanted to comment on Sundog's and RandFan's rational and civil discussion - so refreshing to see that on issues that run so often on pure emotion.

Obviously I'm on Sundog's side, but must admit that RandFan is the most coherent conservative I have ever met .

 

[Sundog]

Re: Positive Remark

I just wanted to comment on Sundog's and RandFan's rational and civil discussion - so refreshing to see that on issues that run so often on pure emotion.

Obviously I'm on Sundog's side, but must admit that RandFan is the most coherent conservative I have ever met .

Thank you.

The REALLY interesting thing is that we are both rather easily riled, and occassionally yell at each other and stomp away, but we always manage to return to a civil discussion with a little more respect for each other. Gives me hope for all of us.

I agree completely about RandFan, he is an honest, intelligent and thoughtful person - for a rightie.

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Positive Remark

Thank you.

The REALLY interesting thing is that we are both rather easily riled, and occassionally yell at each other and stomp away, but we always manage to return to a civil discussion with a little more respect for each other. Gives me hope for all of us.

I agree completely about RandFan, he is an honest, intelligent and thoughtful person - for a rightie.

It is true we are both easily riled. I appreciate the kind words. I really do have allot of respect for those on the other side of the aisle and particularly as it applies to this argument. I would be very troubled if we were all lock step in favor of war. That there are voices in opposition gives me hope that we will do the right thing or if we don't, like the prison abuse cases that it will be stopped because we champion free speech and disagreement

I am not one who labels those who disagree as un-patriotic.

 

[Giz]

The question is, and it seems to be being evaded so far, why Iraq? Why not any of a half-dozen other places? Why not North Korea, for heaven's sake, if we really have this grit-our-teeth-and-blast-'em mentality?

Why not Iraq? Is it only acceptable to depose one dictator if you will similtaneously depose all of the world's dictators?

Could it be that Iraq seemed to pass the gains/loss analysis and North Korea (with greater armed forces, WMD (we think!), and friendly population centers (i.e. Seoul) close to the border) doesn't?

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
So why Saddam?

Because Saddam was potentialy dangerous to the world. That was proven correct by his invasion of Kuwait. After 12 years Saddam did not comply. Saddam had shown that he was willing to wait until his time was ripe. He proved he wanted WMD. Well, he won't be using WMD and the people he won't be oppressing anyone anytims soon as a consolation. *


* Quoted from Randfan.


Imagine if you applied this logic to every aspect of your life.

You go grocery shopping and place a loaf of bread in your basket. Your wife says, "Don't buy that! There are all these other loaves of bread that are just as tasty and nutritious, why buy this one?"

A police officer in your neighborhood witnesses a criminal breaking into a car and goes to arrest him, you tell him not to do it. “Why arrest him when there are other criminals just as bad or worse?”

At work your boss asks you to work on a project, you refuse saying there are other projects that also need working on, and you don’t understand why you should work on this one.

If something needs doing it needs doing. Pointing to other things that also could be done is not a valid reason for not doing it.

 

[Sundog]

If something needs doing it needs doing. Pointing to other things that also could be done is not a valid reason for not doing it.

OK, so the U.S. suddenly shifts into activist mode and starts unilaterally taking out who we don't like. Pretty much the stated "axis of evil" neocon agenda.

You'll have to excuse me if I am not convinced of the wisdom of this course or impressed by its successes, based on results so far.

War isn't a scalpel to cleanly remove a cancer with. War is a bloody saw that ALWAYS causes collateral damage. Given this knowledge, a foreign policy of war after bloody war until all our enemies are dead seems insane to many of us. We think you don't realize how complicated the world is, or fully comprehend the results of your actions.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Sundog
You'll have to excuse me if I am not convinced of the wisdom of this course or impressed by its successes, based on results so far.

I'm not arguing for the war in Iraq. I'm only saying that this specific argument against it, this Why Saddam? makes no sense.

I was against the war when it started. I thought that the reasons we were given for going to war were bogus. However being against the war doesn't mean that I agree with the reasoning of every argument against it.

Originally posted by Sundog War isn't a scalpel to cleanly remove a cancer with. War is a bloody saw that ALWAYS causes collateral damage. Given this knowledge, a foreign policy of war after bloody war until all our enemies are dead seems insane to many of us. We think you don't realize how complicated the world is, or fully comprehend the results of your actions.

And a pro-war argument would be that maybe you don't fully comprehend the results on inaction.

 

[Sundog]

I'm not arguing for the war in Iraq. I'm only saying that this specific argument against it, this Why Saddam? makes no sense.

But don't you think it still begs for an answer? Why DID we focus on Saddam when we should have been focused on the war on terror? I want to know and so should you.

Agree entirely that inaction is sometimes dangerous; I just disagree that this is one of those times, or rather, that our actions are currently misdirected.

 

[corplinx]

See, many (including me) consider this Grand Plan idea to be amazingly naive and driven by American ignorance and arrogance. We see the problems in Iraq as a direct result of the hubris of these leaders, and as powerful evidence that this strongarm approach is not the proper way to go about changing the world.

The grand plan goes back a few hundred years to english factions trying to keep heads from rolling everytime a king of a different religion took power.

The grand plan goes back to some of the more inventive founding fathers who tried to keep the same thing from happening in the US.

The grand plan goes back to Jefferson and others who tried to export this to other countries.

I am not sure if McArthur believed in the grand plan, but look at what he did.

The cold war was a big distraction from the grand plan as we battled a philosophy that was not theist but anti-theist and anathema to everything we've learned about economics.

Starting in the early 1900s there was a revival of old style Islam that culminated in the mess we have today. Its anathema to everything that the defenders of reason who have tried to subvert governments to protect civilization from fanaticism have been trying to accomplish now for centuries.

We take for granted the fact that the worst thing Bush can do as president is let a church who wants to help crackheads get a streamlined loan or appoint some wingnut once in a blue moon to a court position. We forgot how truely brutal a fanatical theocracy is.

Iraq is keystone to subverting the influence of the muslim brotherhood and the fanatical islamic factions who are a throwback to darker times. The irony is that Iraq itself wasn't a theocracy and was the only country in the region not under heavy influence of Al-Ikwan.

The difference 'between" a neocon and a liberal is that neocons want the same protections from fanaticism that America and Europe enjoy to be exported to the most brutal parts of the world. Liberals are proud defenders of the seperation of church vs. state. It comes down to isolationism vs interventionism.

The grand plan isn't new at all.

 

[corplinx]

Now that I've revealed the plan, I have to kill you all.

 

[Chaos]

The difference 'between" a neocon and a liberal is that neocons want the same protections from fanaticism that America and Europe enjoy to be exported to the most brutal parts of the world. Liberals are proud defenders of the seperation of church vs. state. It comes down to isolationism vs interventionism.

The difference between neocons and liberals goes a little deeper than you think. At least, it does from a European point of view.

Neocons, or at least every single one of them who ever opened his mouth to speak or wrote down a single word, see the rest of the world as America´s playground, or a vast lump of clay to form into whatever shape pleases them; they see America as God´s chosen instrument to implement some great plan only they know and which makes sense only to them (and which, incidentally, benefits only them), onto the rest of the world.

Liberals, on the other hand, seem to be a little bit brighter than that. Many of them are even a lot brighter. For example, most of them have understood that the neocons (and they themselves) may on occasion (or even most of the time) be wrong. A difficult concept for someone who feels inspired by God himself, but I assure you it is worth trying to understand it. Good luck!

 

[corplinx]

Neocons, or at least every single one of them who ever opened his mouth to speak or wrote down a single word, see the rest of the world as America´s playground, or a vast lump of clay to form into whatever shape pleases them; they see America as God´s chosen instrument to implement some great plan only they know and which makes sense only to them (and which, incidentally, benefits only them), onto the rest of the world.

Liberals, on the other hand, seem to be a little bit brighter than that.

If liberals believe shallow perceptions gleaned from parody and ad hominem then I wouldn't consider them all that much brighter than your conservatives.

I don't discount the intelligence of those who oppose intervention. Many of them believe in the same underlying freedom that the neocon is trying export.

 

[RandFan]

Neocons, or at least every single one of them who ever opened his mouth to speak or wrote down a single word, see the rest of the world as America´s playground, or a vast lump of clay to form into whatever shape pleases them; they see America as God´s chosen instrument to implement some great plan only they know and which makes sense only to them (and which, incidentally, benefits only them), onto the rest of the world.

Hey Chaos,

You might be right. I'm not at all an expert on neocons. Could you post some background to support your thesis? I'm not asking you to support the notion of "every single one of them" since that is not really possible and I think even you would admit that is simply rhetorical. Thanks in advance.

Liberals, on the other hand, seem to be a little bit brighter than that. Many of them are even a lot brighter. For example, most of them have understood that the neocons (and they themselves) may on occasion (or even most of the time) be wrong. A difficult concept for someone who feels inspired by God himself, but I assure you it is worth trying to understand it. Good luck!

I certainly am for seperation of church and state. I think that you have a valid point. I'm going to say that I intuitivly agree. I wouldn't know how to go about proving it and won't ask you to try especially since you say "seem to be".

Good post,

RandFan

 

[gnome]

Why not Iraq? Is it only acceptable to depose one dictator if you will similtaneously depose all of the world's dictators?

Could it be that Iraq seemed to pass the gains/loss analysis and North Korea (with greater armed forces, WMD (we think!), and friendly population centers (i.e. Seoul) close to the border) doesn't?

The problem I have is that the administration never brought that gain-loss analysis to the people, or to congress. Adopting a policy of "We're going to begin deposing oppresive foreign governments that are hostile to the US, and we're starting with Iraq because it's one we can knock off pretty effectively right now" represented a radical change of foreign policy, and we deserved to be made aware that the President intended this and let our representatives vote on the matter.

Retrospectively, it looks more like something fabricated after the fact, and doesn't hold up as a consistent policy. Are we going to continue with this, or stop with Iraq?