Looks like Saddam is worried

[orange]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Which is a bad thing, and morally wrong.

And you would actually prefer the rule of dictators and madmen who commit genocide and build weapons of mass destruction, and worse, you'd prefer this in the name of morality???

Because, in the US at least, there is a mechanism for getting out of the government if you have enough other people in your state to go along with you.

I don't want a nation at all, I don't want people to go along with me, I just want to be on my own, no government. Sorry but there is no way to go about this in the United States No one can become exempt from the government inside this country.

So you think the Treaty of Versailles was morally right?

I have no 'moral' issues with it, not that I don't feel it was complete idiocy, but something along the lines of Wilson's plan would have been perfectly acceptable to me, and would have worked fine, but to you it wouldn't have because it would be forced on Germany.

[David Floyd]

It is well within the laws of war that have been agreed to by all nations. I fail to see how one can argue that surrender agreements, contracts if you wish, are illegitimate.

Seems to me that when a war actually happens, a peace among equals is the only equitable solution. I'd also point out that in a civil framework, me surrendering to you when you pull a gun on me, and you forcing me to sign a contract for something or other would be very illegitimate. Seems to me the same principle applies.

Not to any meanigful extent. For instance you failed to answer why helping a US ally with access important natural resources is undeserving of protection against naked territtorial agression. What could Sadam have offered us in exchange for seeling out an ally of the US?

What, and you think that the natural resources would disappear if Kuwait was conquered by Iraq?
In fact, why would Iraq even attempt to screw us over on the oil if we minded our own business?

Ooooo, this brings up an interesting sidetrack to this discussion. To what extent would national interets guide a libertarian's foreign policy?

"National interests" is an extremely loose phrase that can be used to describe anything from national survival to repressing individual rights.

[orange]

Originally posted by David Floyd
The phrase "tough ****" springs to mind.

Except in the real world, no nation has anywhere NEAR the means to subdue the whole world, or even a significant part of it - CERTAINLY not when we have thousands of nukes

Let's stay to the real world here

Prior to World War II the Axis surely could have, and imagine if Britain and France had prolonged their involvement in the war based on your thoughts on foreign policy.

America could today, take each nation one by one, and if everyone followed your policies, we'd win easily. Again, each nation one by one. This is why coallitions are GOOD things! They prevent powerful nations from becoming unstoppably powerful.

[orange]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Seems to me that when a war actually happens, a peace among equals is the only equitable solution. I'd also point out that in a civil framework, me surrendering to you when you pull a gun on me, and you forcing me to sign a contract for something or other would be very illegitimate. Seems to me the same principle applies.

Not when you pull a knife on his wife first.

[David Floyd]

DinoDoc,

Something can be bad foreign policy and be morally right at the same time, David. The two are not mutually exclusive by any means what so ever.

So hang on. Germany did nothing more than act in its national interest and supporting an ally, who invaded a country who's secret society assassinated its Archduke. Sound familiar to SOMETHING ELSE RECENTLY?

Fact is, Germany did nothing any worse than anyone else at the time.

Therefore, the "peace treaty" - not to mention US involvement in the war - was morally wrong.

orange,

And you would actually prefer the rule of dictators and madmen who commit genocide and build weapons of mass destruction, and worse, you'd prefer this in the name of morality???

Actually no I'd prefer a free democracy. But my preferences aren't the point when it comes to foreign nations, nor are the preferences of the United States as a whole.

I don't want a nation at all, I don't want people to go along with me, I just want to be on my own, no government.

This relates how?
If you want your own country, buy your own island.

I have no 'moral' issues with it, not that I don't feel it was complete idiocy, but something along the lines of Wilson's plan would have been perfectly acceptable to me, and would have worked fine, but to you it wouldn't have because it would be forced on Germany.

See my response to DinoDoc.

[orange]

What, and you think that the natural resources would disappear if Kuwait was conquered by Iraq?

How about if they took Kuwaitt, then Saudi Arabia, and then the rest of the Middle East without any other nation becoming involved. Oil monopoly first, and then millions lost in larger wars. I think the coallition with 42 lost American lives was more than perferrable to what could have been.

In fact, why would Iraq even attempt to screw us over on the oil if we minded our own business?

It doesn't work that easily

"National interests" is an extremely loose phrase that can be used to describe anything from national survival to repressing individual rights.

And that is for the people of democracies to decide.

[David Floyd]

Prior to World War II the Axis surely could have, and imagine if Britain and France had prolonged their involvement in the war based on your thoughts on foreign policy.

America could today, take each nation one by one, and if everyone followed your policies, we'd win easily. Again, each nation one by one. This is why coallitions are GOOD things! They prevent powerful nations from becoming unstoppably powerful.

Bull****.

The Axis had no economic or logistical ability to invade and conquer the whole world. Just not possible. Hitler's logistical train ran out in EUROPEAN RUSSIA AND THE ATLANTIC OCEAN - not all that much compared to the world. Imagine a trans-Atlantic invasion. Not possible for them.
Ditto with Japan. Not economically or logistically possible.
Not to mention neither had the manpower to hold down their conquests AND keep advancing indefinitely.

Same with the US today. We do not have the manpower, economic, or logistical strength to take on each nation one by one, conquer them, and move on. I'd be surprised if we could conquer North and Latin America, hold it down, and pursue a war in South America - not to mention invading Europe, Japan, or China

Not when you pull a knife on his wife first.

Again, different situation. But I'll play along.
If you pull a knife on my wife, and I shoot and kill you, I'm justified legally and morally. BUT if I hold a gun on you, and force you to sign a contract giving me all your assets, that will not hold up in court. But this is a totally different situation than what we are talking about anyway.

[David Floyd]

How about if they took Kuwaitt, then Saudi Arabia, and then the rest of the Middle East without any other nation becoming involved. Oil monopoly first, and then millions lost in larger wars. I think the coallition with 42 lost American lives was more than perferrable to what could have been.

First off, no oil monopoly. Just a MIDDLE EASTERN oil monopoly. Secondly, economic pressure does not make something our business just on the basis we could be paying more for gas.

It doesn't work that easily

Fine. Even if you are right, it still isn't our business. It's NOT OUR OIL

And that is for the people of democracies to decide.

First off, don't be naive and think that the people of the US decide US foreign policy.

Secondly, it is never OK for the people to vote to invade a foreign nation, kill thousands of foreign soldiers or citizens, and then force a surrender on that nation. It's morally wrong.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Seems to me that when a war actually happens, a peace among equals is the only equitable solution.

Obviously that's not true.

I'd also point out that in a civil framework, me surrendering to you when you pull a gun on me, and you forcing me to sign a contract for something or other would be very illegitimate.

Let's metaphor more realistic shall we. You pull a gun a friend of mine threatening to take over his house and/kill him. I come over manage to subdue you, forcing you to give up. Now after this do I:

a) Let you go on your merry way without doing anything else to you and hope that you don't try again, or

b) take some sort of punative action against you to make sure that this situation doesn't happen again with more dire consequences the next time.

What, and you think that the natural resources would disappear if Kuwait was conquered by Iraq?

Would you try answering the question without being obtuse.

In fact, why would Iraq even attempt to screw us over on the oil if we minded our own business?

This isn't the question I asked, now was it.

"National interests" is an extremely loose phrase that can be used to describe anything from national survival to repressing individual rights.

, it appears that this won't be as interesting as I'd hoped without a Randian here.

[orange]

Originally posted by David Floyd
DinoDoc,

So hang on. Germany did nothing more than act in its national interest and supporting an ally, who invaded a country who's secret society assassinated its Archduke. Sound familiar to SOMETHING ELSE RECENTLY?

Fact is, Germany did nothing any worse than anyone else at the time.

Therefore, the "peace treaty" - not to mention US involvement in the war - was morally wrong.

You're right, but Germany wasn't the only nation to suffer. World War I isn't a good example, the war was ended selfishly. But lets put it this way, Germany had to submit to end the war, which means they were accepting whatever ruling the victors would force upon them. Otherwise they'd keep on fighting right?

orange,

Actually no I'd prefer a free democracy. But my preferences aren't the point when it comes to foreign nations, nor are the preferences of the United States as a whole.

The US isn't the only one making decisions. Why are you so critical of the concept of an open United Nations which protects the rights of all people?

This relates how?

:sigh: Your stance on moral foreign policy doesn't make any sense when you break it down. It's nice to mind your own business, but it's not morally wrong to help allies in a war or discourage dictators that restrict the human rights of their people. It got off on a bit of a tangent, but I was trying to say "where does it end?" How far can you stretch this "mind your own business" nonsense?? I say, to total anarchy, which I do not in any way support, and which you also claim not to support...I ask how can you support it to the extent of a nation, when a nation is forced upon people as well.

If you want your own country, buy your own island.

Proving you obviously missed the point

[David Floyd]

Obviously that's not true.

OK

Let's metaphor more realistic shall we. You pull a gun a friend of mine threatening to take over his house and/kill him. I come over manage to subdue you, forcing you to give up. Now after this do I:

a) Let you go on your merry way without doing anything else to you and hope that you don't try again, or

b) take some sort of punative action against you to make sure that this situation doesn't happen again with more dire consequences the next time.

Yeah. Option b). You call the cops. Or you shoot the mother****er. That's why the metaphor breaks down when applied internationally. There are no cops to call who have any legitimate authority, and you don't have the moral authority to "shoot the mother****er" because he didn't do anything to your nation.

Would you try answering the question without being obtuse.

Would you try asking a question that doesn't have obvious answers? My position is that it was none of our business, and we could have traded with Saddam just as easily as the anti-freedom bastards running Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. Mighta cost us more, but it isn't our oil to begin with. Tough ****.

This isn't the question I asked, now was it.

See above.

it appears that this won't be as interesting as I'd hoped without a Randian here.

Apparently. But seriously, what does the phrase "National interest" really mean, other than whatever the guy in power wants it to mean?

[David Floyd]

You're right, but Germany wasn't the only nation to suffer. World War I isn't a good example, the war was ended selfishly. But lets put it this way, Germany had to submit to end the war, which means they were accepting whatever ruling the victors would force upon them. Otherwise they'd keep on fighting right?

Doesn't change the fact that not only were the peace conditions immoral, but the whole outbreak of war was immoral as well.

The US isn't the only one making decisions. Why are you so critical of the concept of an open United Nations which protects the rights of all people?

Clearly because in a democratic UN with actual power, the Chinese, or the Africans, or whomever, could vote as a bloc and stop a nation, such as the US from doing something they didn't like, thus destroying any semblance of national sovereignty, and self-rule.

Your stance on moral foreign policy doesn't make any sense when you break it down. It's nice to mind your own business, but it's not morally wrong to help allies in a war or discourage dictators that restrict the human rights of their people. It got off on a bit of a tangent, but I was trying to say "where does it end?" How far can you stretch this "mind your own business" nonsense?? I say, to total anarchy, which I do not in any way support, and which you also claim not to support...I ask how can you support it to the extent of a nation, when a nation is forced upon people as well.

"Mind your own business" clearly means, in this context, that you don't interfere in foreign wars unless they attack you first.
Examples such as shooting your wife, or whatever, are bull**** because it's a totally different framework and situation.

Proving you obviously missed the point

Not at all. You want the right to throw off the authority of the US federal government. You already have that right. Either convince your state to secede, move out, or buy your own island.
Obviously, if they are violating your rights, there are other options available to you (use of force springs to mind), but that doesn't seem to be the case here.

[orange]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Bull****.

You don't really think that nations like Costa Rica Peru Zimbabwe and New Zealand could, on their own, defend against the US. Even nations as large as Australia or Algeria would be beaten easily. Especially if we just tossed some nuclear weapons! Now, obviously this is a stretch of what WOULD actually happen, but it's not a stretch of what COULD happen assuming everyone agreed to your "none of our business" policy.

The Axis had no economic or logistical ability to invade and conquer the whole world.

Surely they did if people followed your policies. If every single nation ignored Germany and Japan until they were attacked, it would be easy for Germany and Japan to take over the world.

Just not possible. Hitler's logistical train ran out in EUROPEAN RUSSIA AND THE ATLANTIC OCEAN

If everyone did what you said nations should do, Germany would have gone one by one, annexing Eastern Europe as they did, taking Norway the lowlands and France as they did, and then building up larger forces...taking individual nations, and then trying for the big ones like England and Russia one by one. Not so hard to believe to me

not all that much compared to the world. Imagine a trans-Atlantic invasion. Not possible for them.

Not with a two front war...but if they had done each nation individually, they could easily have won.

Ditto with Japan. Not economically or logistically possible.

Even more possible for them!

Not to mention neither had the manpower to hold down their conquests AND keep advancing indefinitely.

Not the way they were fighting it, based on logical coallitions and the rules of war, but based on the way you would like nations to behave, YES they could have.

Same with the US today. We do not have the manpower, economic, or logistical strength to take on each nation one by one, conquer them, and move on.

I strongly disagree. Especially if under a dictator.

I'd be surprised if we could conquer North and Latin America, hold it down, and pursue a war in South America - not to mention invading Europe, Japan, or China

This wouldn't necessarily have to happen in a matter of 2 years! It could be an ongoing struggle. Each nation falling, like dominoes.

Again, different situation. But I'll play along.
If you pull a knife on my wife, and I shoot and kill you, I'm justified legally and morally.

Why? You should mind your own business. After all, it's your wife's problem, not yours. You're not justified at all according to you!

It'd be like us defending Britain or Kuwait, which you say is wrong.

BUT if I hold a gun on you, and force you to sign a contract giving me all your assets, that will not hold up in court. But this is a totally different situation than what we are talking about anyway.

Read DinoDoc's example

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Yeah. Option b). You call the cops. Or you shoot the mother****er. That's why the metaphor breaks down when applied internationally. There are no cops to call who have any legitimate authority,

In the anarchy that exists in the international system today, international law is self-enforced by the States in the system. So, in this instance we actually were the cops.

Would you try asking a question that doesn't have obvious answers?

I would if you would actually list a benefit to letting Sadam run rampant. So far I only see costs which doesn't make it a wise foreign policy decision.

[David Floyd]

You don't really think that nations like Costa Rica Peru Zimbabwe and New Zealand could, on their own, defend against the US. Even nations as large as Australia or Algeria would be beaten easily. Especially if we just tossed some nuclear weapons! Now, obviously this is a stretch of what WOULD actually happen, but it's not a stretch of what COULD happen assuming everyone agreed to your "none of our business" policy.

You totally ignored the important part of my post. What I said was that, sure, we could invade a couple, but eventually manpower and logistics would catch up with us, as well as of course civilian dissent at home.

Surely they did if people followed your policies. If every single nation ignored Germany and Japan until they were attacked, it would be easy for Germany and Japan to take over the world.

Bull****. Re-read my post.

If everyone did what you said nations should do, Germany would have gone one by one, annexing Eastern Europe as they did, taking Norway the lowlands and France as they did, and then building up larger forces...taking individual nations, and then trying for the big ones like England and Russia one by one. Not so hard to believe to me

Bull****. Re-read my post.

Not with a two front war...but if they had done each nation individually, they could easily have won.

Bull****. Re-read my post. Where oh where are the history majors who can back me up. I think Chris62 even would back me up on these points.

Even more possible for them!

*sigh* Why do I even try?

Not the way they were fighting it, based on logical coallitions and the rules of war, but based on the way you would like nations to behave, YES they could have.

See above

I strongly disagree. Especially if under a dictator.

What would a dictator matter? Hell, that'd make it even harder as you'd be hit with total rebellion at home pretty damn soon after a dictator took over and started trying to take over the world. Not that it would matter. 250 million against 6 billion? Not likely. And you think the US could invade *CHINA* or *RUSSIA*??? WTF?

This wouldn't necessarily have to happen in a matter of 2 years! It could be an ongoing struggle. Each nation falling, like dominoes.

Simple concept. As each nation falls, it has to be adequately garrisoned. For a nation like Costa Rica, no big deal. For a large nation, a militant nation, or a heavily populated nation, such as Canada, Australia, Russia, China, Japan, England, Germany, etc., it IS a very big deal. Pretty soon, you have more men on garrison duty, fighting guerilla wars, than you do on the front line, and THAT, my friend can't continue. The only set of dominos that will fall is YOUR set of overextended conquests.

Why? You should mind your own business. After all, it's your wife's problem, not yours. You're not justified at all according to you!

It'd be like us defending Britain or Kuwait, which you say is wrong.

Bull****. You're oversimplifying and changing the entire scenario. A husband-wife relationship is NOT like an alliance. It is a family unit, it is legally protected by US law, and it would be a moral travesty NOT to protect your wife. Surely you can see the difference between husband-wife and US-Kuwait???