Tell me about your mother....
That sucks!
And the lesson is...don't believe promises?
Sadly, Nat, the lesson might be exactly that- and know who you're dealing with. People are who they are.
How many had to die before you considered taking the vehicles away?
Sounds like you're still thinking about it.
btw: I hope you're feeling better.
We WANT to take the vehicles away. We i the process of going in to get them.
Ditto, miguel.
The thinly-veiled analogy to Iraq is not quite fully formed. Let's extend the metaphor a bit:
You fail to mention that the "vehicles" we provided to the "men who needed our help" were proprietary technologies (i.e., no one else in the world had them, unless we gave them away or sold them), so it's not like we just lent them a "vehicle" like everyone else's on the road.
You fail to mention that the "vehicles" were intended not just for transportation of people and goods, but for ... how do we put this ... "offensive" driving, not just "defensive" driving.
You fail to mention that we knew of some of the propensities of those to whom we gave the "vehicles" (i.e., we knew that they had a habit of driving drunk), but we also knew that in the short-term, the neighborhood where they were drunk driving was in a bad area of town, and the people who would be killed by their drunk driving were people we didn't like very much.
You fail to mention that, even after we knew of their drunk driving and killing of others besides just our enemies, that we looked away, because they were selling us a necessary commodity on the cheap-cheap (let's call it ... "propane").
You fail to mention that 13 years ago we caught them red-handed in a drunk driving incident, and chased them all the way to the county line, but refused to cross the border to arrest them and end their drunk driving days once and for all.
You fail to mention that throughout this entire process, we had "friends" who were in close with the drunk drivers, giving us periodic updates about their drunk driving escapades, yet we didn't attempt to get our "vehicles" back based on these "friends'" information.
Finally, you fail to mention that when the drunk drivers were actually revealed to the world as drunk drivers, we acted as though we'd been mortal enemies with them since the beginning, and not giving them "vehicles" and buying their "propane" for decades.
Your Aesop-like allegory is a great morality tale, but it leaves out a good deal of the morality of the original story. Hard to learn a lesson from a fairy tale that doesn't tell you what you're supposed to learn.
No boomr- we, like every other country in the world, has to look out for our best interests.
The fact some of the technology was proprietary is irrelevant.
The principal issue remains that what Saddam and OBL did were choices they alone made.
Your reference to their perdilictions is also irrelevent- and dangerous, though, in a roundabout way, we have to agree.
They entered into agreements with us- are you saying they can never be trusted? Shall we cease doing business with Arab leader? China? Africa?
Our helping the Arab world probably isn't a good idea- but for reasons stated earlier, we have our own interests to look out for.
In the end boomr, you cannot change the reality that these people made their own choices.
I agree that propietary technology is irrelevant.
The fact remains Saddam was a bad, bad man. THAT'S WHY WE PICKED HIM. We needed a bad, bad man to beat Iran into submission. We wanted the big, bad bully on the playground to be our big, bad bully (is that a fair paraphrase?).
Do not for a moment tell me the United States of America got fooled by Saddam, and Noriega, and Somoza, and Pinochet. They were evil men, willing to kill for fun. We knew it; they knew it.
Live with the consequences of your choice. Sometimes, we all fuck up.
Honor is accepting my mistake and trying to fix it--not trying to fix it while denying I ever fucked up.
No Miguel- we picked him because he was THERE. There was no one else!
And yes, we had a vested interest in keeping the Mullahs down. Certainly, time has proven us correct on that matter.
We have an interest- like every other country- to look out after our own interests. We have that OBLIGATION. It is not a matter of honor. Politics is never about honor- it is about the horse trade.
If we lived by your ideals, we would have nothing to do with a whole lot of countries we deal with now.
Ok here's what you traded: he was there; we took him; he killed people... somehow now you claim your hands (and mine) are not covered in blood.
Let us take responsibility for our actions: we had no choice but him, fine; but having made that choice, we are partially responsible.
One day, we may find that the North Korean guy did the same or worse, and I will stand beside you in blaming him: WE DID NOT PICK HIM.
The one we picked is OURS, even if there was no other choice.
That is where you go wrong. You assume because there was no other choice, then we bear no guilt, but picking the only one there is is still picking one.
I've heard the same things about Somoza and later Pinochet. I am not in the business of figuring out what might have happened if we made another choice in Iraq or Chile, or Nicaragua. But what did happen is a monumental catastrophe--a monument to American interests abroad.
If our interests are THAT important, let us have the testicular fortitude to accept the consequences like men. The buck stops here.
Failure to accept that responsibility will only lead to further loss of life.
I reiterate: that we do good now does not in the slightest way preclude that we were one of the principal causal factors that took the world down this path.
This attempt at shifting the blame that belongs to us (however minor) is twice as reprehensible as having taken the original action.
I'm not saying anybody involved was a bad person (other than Saddam, as he has proven), but J.H.C.! We've made our bed.
Let us not now look for a couch, good doctors.
Yeah, what he said.
... only for those willing to learn it.
/TJ
I support Bush, and if he thinks being in this war is the right thing to do, I will have to defer to his superior knowledge, knowing that there is always a lot more to the story than meets the eye. He has access to intelligence that the rst of us are not privy to.
Mark, I agree. He has access to intelligence we just don't have.
Like the WMD's.
Clinton, Blair, Bush... I'm sure even the pope thought Saddam had nuclear weapons.
Fine.
We were all wrong.
Let's admit it and move on.
We did the right thing for the wrong reason...
oops!
Shit happens. Only a fool stammers and tries to squirm from under that.
A grown-up would say: i thought "a"; it wasn't true. "b" was true; i accept my mistake and still stand by my decision. When one is the only person who can press the Big Red Button, it is critical one be very, very sure.
Mark: if you have no doubts about Bush's actions, then it is your responsibility to support him. However, if you do (as I do) then I hope you understand I strongly feel it is my democratic (little d, not big D) responsibility to voice them. It is one of the things that makes this one of the best places on Earth to be.
Mark, while I do (and always have) questioned Bush's knowledge, it is more the motives that concern me. This was way more than just about national security. It is my patriotic duty to question the motives of our leaders.
Miguel, are you suggesting we cut off contact with China, Russia, half of South America and the Arab world?
No.
I am not.
What I suggest is that it is disingenuous to claim both innocence through lack of choice AND innocence for the greater good.
If we are to lie with dogs, then let's wear our fleas proudly.
If we are to bitch about fleas, then let's just not lie with dogs.
I don't have a problem with looking the world in the eye and saying: "fuck you! this is how I want it and you have to live with it." However politely and diplomatically you want to say it.
But to say how innocent we are and suffer through a dictatorship like Pinochet and Somoza until others do something about it and then claim to be appalled by their having been there in the first place is both hypocritical and really rather transparent. Contrary to popular opinion, the rest of the world is smarter than that. They know the barrel when you lead 'em to it.
They may have to get screwed cuz that's how life works... but if you're doing the screwing, don't tell 'em you feel their pain.
"No boomr- we, like every other country in the world, has [sic] to look out for our best interests."
So, it's in our best interests to be at war with and occupy Iraq now, instead of 13 years ago when Iraq invaded another country? What about during the attempted genocide of the Kurds? I'm not sure what you mean by our "best interests."
"The fact some of the technology was proprietary is irrelevant."
No, it's not, not when your "drunk driving" analogy presupposes that the people killed by the drunk drivers were driving in similar vehicles as the drunks. A more appropriate analogy would be if the drunk drivers were driving Humvees and the people killed were driving Yugos. The technology of the instrument of death is definitely important.
"The principal issue remains that what Saddam and OBL did were choices they alone made."
But their choices were made easier by help from others, including the US. Their "choices" would have been substantially limited if no one had given them a damn thing, if everyone had treated them as pariahs.
"Your reference to their perdilictions [sic] is also irrelevent- and dangerous, though, in a roundabout way, we have to agree."
Again, the "predilections" are incredibly important if we're giving the means of satisfying those predilections to the perpetrators. If you paraded a school full of children in front of a child molestor, knowing full well his propensity for child molestation, you'd be partially responsible for what he did with one of those children. You don't give the keys of your car to a drunk driver.
"They entered into agreements with us- are you saying they can never be trusted? Shall we cease doing business with Arab leader? China? Africa?"
You've said that a number of times (refer to your many posts about the failings of Islamic states), but have never once rebuked Presidents Reagan or Bush for being buddy-buddy with these regimes in the past. I wonder why that is...
"Our helping the Arab world probably isn't a good idea- but for reasons stated earlier, we have our own interests to look out for."
Read: oil.
"In the end boomr, you cannot change the reality that these people made their own choices."
And in the end, you can't change the reality that we helped them make that choice.
Here's the biggest problem I have with the state of political discourse these days: It has become "unpatriotic" to accept that our country has made mistakes. Just as I wouldn't lump myself in with the "blame America first" crowd, neither would I lump myself in with the "blame America never" crowd which seems to be so vocal these days. Both are mere partisan hacks, espousing untenable positions. In this particular conversation, to say that the US, one of only two superpowers in the world between 1945 and 1992 or so, and the only one since then, has had no effect (good or bad) on the Middle East, despite the fact that we've got 50 years of cl
... 50 years of close support of Israel, a war with Libya, a war in Beirut, a Gulf War, an Iraq war, Afghanistan wars (including the support of the mujahadeen during the Soviet occupation), various attempts at peace negotiations, terrorist attacks and bombing of terrorist camps, and other political and non-political influences in the region under our belts, is simply to ignore the realities of the last half century.
So, it's a fact we armed Iraq and Afghanistan, when we were fighting their enemies. It's a fact we have close ties to Saudi Arabia. It's a fact we knew of their predilections for unsavory behavior while we were doing these things. It's a fact that both regimes turned their sights on us once we helped them defeat the original enemies. Why can't we admit all of this, then work to fix the current problems?
This is all based on the supposition that such admission would somehow weaken our current global position. See? It's like this: we're only right as long as we're right... the moment we're wrong, we're always wrong... and we can't be wrong... so they must be.
Makes perfect sense to me.
Oompa-loompa, oompa-dee-doo...
oops... wrong fantasy movie...
m'bad!
To paraphrase something I have heard before:
There are two ways to love your country. One is to love your country a 4 year old loves his mommy. The other way is to love you country that a husband loves his wife.
In the first instance, the 4 year old gives absolute devotion to mommy. She can do no wrong and the 4 year old will accept "because I told you so."
The second is to love your country accepting that your spouse does have flaws and is fallible. "because I told you so," just doesn't flies. You expect an explanation for her actions.
Both are love, but I prefer to love my country in the second form.
There’s a saying old, says that love is blind
Still we’re often told, seek and ye shall find
So I’m going to seek a certain lad I’ve had in mind
Looking everywhere, haven’t found him yet
He’s the big affair I cannot forget
Only man I ever think of with regret
I’d like to add his initial to my monogram
Tell me, where is the shepherd for this lost lamb?
There’s a somebody I’m longin’ to see
I hope that he, turns out to be
Someone who’ll watch over me
I’m a little lamb who’s lost in the wood
I know I could, always be good
To one who’ll watch over me
Although he may not be the man some
Girls think of as handsome
To my heart he carries the key
Won’t you tell him please to put on some speed
Follow my lead, oh, how I need
Someone to watch over me
...
Won’t you tell him please to put on some speed
Follow my lead, oh, how I need
Someone to watch over me
Someone to watch over me
Boomr- after 50 years, have we learned who are friends are, in the region?
As for listening to your country as you listen to your wife, dingo, that presupposes you don't refer to your wife a bitch all the time, or stupid, or a nazi, etc.
That also presupposes that she has the same right to judge you.
By the way, boomr- I do agree with much of what you have to say. Our mideast policy has been a disaster because we failed to deal with reality.
That can be said about every administration since Truman's.
Define "friend"
Osama was our friend in Afghanistan.
Which of our current allies will bomb New York next?
L.A.?
Previous experience gives absolutely no indication of future performance.
And there you have it, Miguel. You have made my point for me.
The only friends democracies have are other democracies. While they may disagree at times, the fact is that in our times, democracies do not go to war with another.
Really? "friends"?
Are you still eating "freedom" fries?
As I recall, even if Hitler hadn't touched a single opponent, he'd have won every single election in Germany throughout the early 40's.
What are our times? It sounds like you expect these last 50 yrs or so to be indicative of the next 500... I hope you're right... I just lack your unfailing certainty on the matter.
The fact that Hitler won those elections didn't make him remarkable.
What made him remarkkable was that after he used the democratic process, he stripped the country of the democratic process.
Thus far, that has not happened in Europe.
I never ate freedom fries, by the way.
"Boomr- after 50 years, have we learned who are [sic] friends are, in the region?"
We have no friends in the region -- at least, no long-term friends that will assert our interests without necessarily thinking of its own (like the UK sometimes does). And I include Israel in that description, as it's quite clear that Israel will ignore the US's input when it suits its own needs (settlements, walls, preemptive or retaliatory strikes against terrorist leaders, general incitement of tensions in the region, etc.). Saudi Arabia, too, with its Janus-like ability to speak to us with one face while speaking to Islamist terror experts with the other. The closest ally we really have is Turkey, and that friendship is being strained at the moment. Just wait until someone in the US comes out and advocates a free Kurdistan, and we'll have no friends at all (even in title) in the region, 'cause Turkey will run to the east. And maybe Kuwait, too, but its influence is limited.
"Our mideast policy has been a disaster because we failed to deal with reality."
I'd qualify that statement: We dealt quite well with the PRESENT realities (Iran didn't take over Iraq, Afghanistan didn't stay under Soviet control, Israel is still there, etc.), but we have failed miserably to look any farther than our nose when it comes to foreign relations in this area. Short-term allies in wars against short-term enemies have become much longer-term enemies that are far more dangerous than the short-term enemies were. Seriously, compare the danger -- the actual physical possibility of attacks on the US or its citizens abroad -- posed by the Taliban and its cohorts, then compare that with the danger -- again, actual physical danger to US citizens -- posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Anyone who has taken a high school history or religion survey course would have recognized that militant Islamic fundamentalists would not be long-term allies with the US ("the Great Satan"), yet we used them (and armed them and paid them and let them run amok) for our short-term gain. If we had done nothing to support the Afghan rebels against the Soviets, Afghanistan would have self-rule right now (as all the other former Soviet states do), and they would not have suffered under the Taliban for so long.
"The only friends democracies have are other democracies."
All our friends may be democracies, but not all democracies are our friends. There is no guarantee that a democratic Iraq or Afghanistan will be close allies with the US -- at least, not after our military has pulled out and we have paid for the reconstructions of those countries. And there's also no guarantee that democratic processes in these countries won't lead to an institutionalization of Islamic fundamentalism. What's better than an Islamic fundamentalist state forced upon the people by a few mullahs in power? A democracy in which the people freely choose an Islamic fundamentalist state.
...
"The fact that Hitler won those elections didn't make him remarkable.
What made him remarkkable was that after he used the democratic process, he stripped the country of the democratic process.
Thus far, that has not happened in Europe."
Then why has everyone been complaining about what's going on with the EU? I've heard everything from it's becoming a socialist federation to it's becoming a new fascist conglomeration -- the essence being that the EU is trying to "strip[] the [region] of the democratic process."
The whole point of your original post was that these recalcitrant nations (or leaders of those nations) "made their own choices" to act as they did. My whole point was that they didn't do so without help. If we've made such mistakes in mideast policy since Truman's administration, yet we've still been deeply involved in the goings-on of the region since that time, then why is it that people can't admit that the US may have made a few mistakes in causing, contributing to, or acquiescing in these recalcitrant countries' actions?
Once we've admitted that, maybe we can make sure that we won't make the same mistakes again. Ignoring mistakes makes it thousands of times more likely to repeat them.
Commenting by HaloScan
