Armed Liberal

AUTHOR: Andrew

EMAIL:

IP: 65.95.195.115

URL: http://sketch.blogspot.com

DATE: 10/17/2002 09:52:14 PM

Date: 10/03/2002 00:00:00 AM
You're right to come after me on that, AL. But it's exactly the greater good I'm interested in. The best possible outcome would be both overthrow of Saddam and ouster of Bush. But given a choice, I think that the greater good would be no more Bush. Especially since, like William said, a more reasonable President would probably do as good a job, if not a better job, in Iraq.

AUTHOR: William Burton

EMAIL: veryveryveryangry@yahoo.com

IP: 67.216.88.17

URL: http://williamburton.blogspot.com

DATE: 10/17/2002 09:52:14 PM

Date: 10/02/2002 00:00:00 AM
I'd be willing to put off war for a couple years, but because I think the Bushies would blow it. Doing this right requires a lot of patience, a lot of sensitivity, and a lot of cash, not things Republicans usually lavish on Arab nations.Given the fact that we've essentially bailed on any responsibility to rebuild Afganistan, I'm afraid we'd do the same thing in Iraq.

AUTHOR: Eric

EMAIL: eric.tam@yale.edu

IP: 68.63.160.241

URL:

DATE: 10/17/2002 09:52:14 PM

Date: 10/03/2002 00:00:00 AM
A.L.,In Andrew's defense, it's worth remembering that he is, like me, a Canadian, not an American, citizen. So your point about "national interest" doesn't quite fly. When he thinks about U.S. electoral politics, he isn't thinking in partisan terms, he's thinking about the world interest, or at least these interests as he sees them.Unlike you lucky folks with US, millions of people in other countries don't get to vote for the guy who will have a massive say as to how the international system works for the next few years. Try to look at it our way:Saddam is a regional murderer who is in control of a weak state with a fractured military. He is a threat to world peace to the extent that he attempts to develop WMD and cooperates with terrorists.In contrast, Bush is a respectable but easily manipulable guy whose hawkish advisors control the world's strongest military and economic power. They have a self-righteous and righteous vision of world order that involves American leadership/ dominance on the world stage through unilateral military and political action. Oh, and they have access to WMD and have been recently floating proposals regarding the possibilities of their tactical use.This may sound harsh, but it's true: for the rest of the world, the Bush doctrine poses as much, much more of a security problem than Saddam does. As long as he's contained, we can more-or-less predict what Saddam can and will do (and to be really cynical about it, to those people who live outside of the Middle East, Saddam just isn't a real threat--his missiles can't reach any further than the Mediterraean, and on the remote chance that he slips WMD to terrorists, the target will almost certainly be the U.S.). The same cannot be said for Donald Rumsfeld Richard Perle. Their policies present the very real possibility that they will destabilize significant regions of the world and the international system as a whole (indeed, as far as the Middle East goes, Perle, for example, has indicated that such destabilization IS one of his goals).From this perspective, please forgive the rest of the world if we have different priorities regarding regime change from you folks.

AUTHOR: T Hartin

EMAIL: zgolem@yahoo.com

IP: 12.84.195.202

URL:

DATE: 10/17/2002 09:52:13 PM

Date: 10/03/2002 00:00:00 AM
For a post-load of unadulterated, um, stuff, it would be hard to beat that last one.>>I'd be willing to put off war for a couple years, but because I think the Bushies would blow it.Putting it off for a couple of years would BE blowing it. Does it matter at all that leaving Saddam in power for a couple of years condemns his people to a couple of more years of living hell and increases the risk that he will obtain nuclear weapons?>>Doing this right requires a lot of patience, a lot of sensitivity, and a lot of cash, not things Republicans usually lavish on Arab nations. But we, including Republicans, do lavish billions on Arab nations. As for patience and sensitivity, that was essentially the Clinton policy, which got us a smoking crater in Manhattan, with the promise of more to come.Doing this right requires, among other things, an unmistakable show of force. WIthout that, the Islamo-nuts correctly conclude that our "patience," "sensitivity," and cash are signs of weakness, and that our interests can safely be disregarded and our people killed.>>Given the fact that we've essentially bailed on any responsibility to rebuild Afganistan, I'm afraid we'd do the same thing in Iraq. You probably shouldn't rely entirely on Al Gore for your facts. Last I looked, we were dumping money into Afghanistan and helping police the place, to the point of providing the President's bodyguards. If we did any more, we would be accused of heavy-handed imperialism by, among others, Mr. Burton.

AUTHOR: inkgrrl

EMAIL: kari@inkgrrl.com

IP: 66.74.67.107

URL: http://www.inkgrrl.com/inkblog.htm

DATE: 10/17/2002 09:52:13 PM

Date: 10/04/2002 00:00:00 AM
hell, I'd just like to see one public-voiced Senator and one Congressmember strip down, grease up, and wrestle for it. I'm just saying...

AUTHOR: Eric

EMAIL: eric.tam@yale.edu

IP: 68.63.160.241

URL:

DATE: 10/17/2002 09:52:13 PM

Date: 10/04/2002 00:00:00 AM
Rob,"Every country acts in its own best interests, as perceived by the leadership of that nation. For you to argue that the U.S. should NOT do so is to impose a double standard."Nope, have to disagree entirely with you there. The notion of "best interests" is entirely constrained by norms, some of which are domestic (in the U.S., the Constitution's democratic values) and others of which are international (international law, what other democratic countries think). Individuals are thought to act in their "best interests" too, but if they did so without regard to what society in general thought, we rightly call them either sociopaths or vigilantes. Armed Liberal WOULD be a security threat to his neighbours and he was a vigilante who actively hunted down gang members. His neighbours might know that he only targets criminals (and that the gang members, perhaps, are only targeting him), but being hit by crossfire is still being hit by a bullet.Damn straight the international system consists of people trying to tell the each other what to do. Trying to tell the U.S. what to do is completely fair because the system consists to a significant extent of the U.S. telling other people what to do as well. I can accept this; what I CAN'T accept is the Bush's unwillingness toward give-and-take. This WOULD be extremely damaging to the security interests of many nations. In simpler terms: the presidency of the U.S. is a very, very important job. Messing it up could conceivably lead to WWIII. This would be very, very bad for the security of other nations, much worse than anything Saddam could do. So there's no double-standard here.P.S.: The arrogance of everyday Americans who see themselves defending and never defended by the policies of other nations is amazing. It has never been a one-way street. I don't even want to start listing the ways in which other nations already voluntarily contribute to American security interests; contributions that are in no way dispensable (To start, can you name the 5 beaches at D-Day? Do you remember what happened to all those international inbound aircraft last Sept.?).

AUTHOR: Rob Lyman

EMAIL: bigots@keepandbeararms.com

IP: 128.95.93.195

URL:

DATE: 10/17/2002 09:52:13 PM

Date: 10/03/2002 00:00:00 AM
Eric,"for the rest of the world, the Bush doctrine poses as much, much more of a security problem than Saddam does. "Right. Bush wants to invade Canada, but he won't make it the 51st state because he wants the population as slaves. The ceaselessly annoying Fifth Republic will finally be overthrown, and replaced by a friendly dictator, say, Pat Buchannan, which is no better than the French, and Pat, deserve. Then we must turn our attention to Australian imperialism--do those people really need an ENTIRE continent?Seriously--what the hell do you mean? The U.S. poses no threat to anyone who does not threaten the U.S., its citizens, and its allies. In analogous case, Armed Liberal, despite being armed, poses no threat to anyone who is not a criminal attacking him or his neighbors. Bush does threaten the "international system," but that's because the "system" mostly consists of people who want to tell the U.S. what to do. You might think Bush unpredictable, but I find his actions fairly easy to predict--but I don't share your faith in Iraq.Now, you could argue that Saddam does not threaten the U.S.; that's just fine. But you can't pretend that Canada (which has, by the way, enjoyed America's protection for more than 60 years, and has the teeny-tiny army to prove it) is threatened by the Bush Doctrine, unless you know something about Chretien's intentions that we don't. That's just a cheap insult.Every country acts in its own best interests, as perceived by the leadership of that nation. For you to argue that the U.S. should NOT do so is to impose a double standard. Canada may have "different priorities" than the U.S.--that's fine by me. If you don't want to help, don't. Just don't get in our way.

AUTHOR: Rob Lyman

EMAIL: bigots@keepandbeararms.com

IP: 128.95.93.195

URL:

DATE: 10/17/2002 09:52:12 PM

Date: 10/04/2002 00:00:00 AM
Eric,Regarding "norms" and "international law," I have contempt for them. This is not because I think they are a bad idea or because I yearn for a new age of imperialism; it's because I think they are figments of the imagination. If I murder someone, I will be arrested and punished. The law prohibits murder; we have a robust police and court system which will enforce the law. I cannot get out of a murder charge by taking hostages or jumping bail. Also, presumably other murderers will not be permitted to sit on my jury, the way, for instance, Libya heads the U.N. Human Rights Commission.Saddam, on the other hand, is a global criminal who has thumbed his nose at the U.N. for a decade. He violates every damn "norm" in the book. He ignores the "international system" which you seem to love, as well as showing no interest in the basic human dignity of Iraqis. He is like a murderer who gets his charges reduced or dropped by refusing to surrender and raping a couple of women in the interim. The "world court," the U.N., goes along with him for cynical reasons of self-interest, not because they think he's innocent or are worried about his due-process rights. The international arena is a state of nature without police officers; vigilantes are the only kind of law enforcement we have; yet you insist that somehow it is immoral for the U.S. to enforce the law. What will become of your precious "norms" if no one is willing to enforce them? How would YOU view criminal law if you knew it would never be enforced?You might die in the crossfire if, in a city with no police at all, Armed Liberal and I wind up in a fire fight near you house, trying to protect your family from the local thugs. That's a tragedy. It isn't a reason to call us a "greater threat than the criminals."

AUTHOR: Rob Lyman

EMAIL: bigots@keepandbeararms.com

IP: 128.95.93.195

URL:

DATE: 10/17/2002 09:52:12 PM

Date: 10/04/2002 00:00:00 AM
P.S.: Yes, Canada and many other countries make meaningful contributions to U.S. security. I don't deny or doubt it.But if you want gratitude from us, you need to show a litte to us, instead of comparing us unfavorably to a thuggish dictator like Saddam. Don't expect me to lead off with a "thank you" when you lead off with an insult.

AUTHOR: Kirk Parker

EMAIL: kparker@eudoramail.com

IP: 66.224.7.10

URL:

DATE: 10/17/2002 09:52:12 PM

Date: 10/05/2002 00:00:00 AM
Hey Eric:> In simpler terms: the presidency of> the U.S. is a very, very important> job. Messing it up could> conceivably lead to WWIII. I hope you're sitting down, man--let me give you some news: WWIII has _already_ started (and it wasn't the West that started it.) The only question facing us now is whether or not we will fight back.

AUTHOR: Rob Lyman

EMAIL: bigots@keepandbeararms.com

IP: 63.75.53.98

URL:

DATE: 10/17/2002 09:52:12 PM

Date: 10/05/2002 00:00:00 AM
Eric,I should have said this last time:I can name 4 D-Day beaches: Omaha, Juno, Gold, Sword. I'm too lazy to do a search for the last one.But I don't see the relevance. The Normandy invasion was not about American security. It was about British and French security.Which means that it supports my point, not yours. In as far as the story of D-Day is about one country sacrificing for another, it's about the U.S. (and Canada) sacrificing for the U.K.

AUTHOR: Eric

EMAIL: eric.tam@yale.edu

IP: 68.63.160.241

URL:

DATE: 10/17/2002 09:52:11 PM

Date: 10/08/2002 00:00:00 AM
Kirk: WWIII has NOT started. And thank heavens. That you are asserting this shows how little you know about the nature of the first two World Wars. What we're going through (so far) doesn't even come close to matching up with the Cold War (yet).Rob: 1) The international system is not the state of nature. This is an old saw that's easily disproved. It has functioning institutions and enforcement systems that do work on a fairly consistent basis, although they're obviously not as strong as those in domestic society. But that doesn't mean that they don't exist. Norms are not "figments of the imagination"; they matter to anyone who doesn't want to be shown to be a liar and a scoundrel, which is very important in the liberal democratic societies that make up most of the world's most powerful nations. If norms and international law didn't matter, then why would anyone care about whether or not the U.S. joined the ICC? It's not as though the Rome Statute gives the ICC troops.2) The sheriff/vigilante is a greate threat to me than the criminal if the former's well-meaning but reckless actions to enforce the law or his sense of justice have a greater chance of harming me (or might harm me more seriously) than the do the criminal's actions. This isn't a normative judgement; it's a probabilistic one. Furthermore, if you and Armed Liberal killed me while trying to defend me from thugs EVEN THOUGH I had said that I could defend myself just fine, thank you very much, or "don't shoot!" it wouldn't just be a tragedy; it would be a travesty.3) You conflate too many issues when you try to reduce my argument to an "unfavorable" comparison between the U.S. and a thuggish dictator like Saddam. Iraq has a criminal regime, but it is a crippled nation with little agency. In contrast, the U.S.'s great power means that it can be a great friend (its constitutional values also help a good deal), but this power intrinsically gives it the capacity to put the world in great danger--not necessarily as a result of malevolence (although there has been some at times, since those constitutional values often don't extend effectively beyond U.S. shores), but because of incompetence. P.S.: Not bad with D-Day... ironically, the one you forgot was the other U.S. beach...my point, BTW, was one with which you eventually agreed--that the U.S. has never "done it alone."