Looks like Saddam is worried

[David Floyd]

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.

That's the whole problem! Where do we get the moral authority to play "World Policeman"? Nowhere, I say.

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.

A benefit? Certainly. It's the morally right thing to do. It would be morally WRONG to interject into a situation that is none of our business. And a wise foreign policy decision is also very open to interpretation. "Wise foreign policy", and "national interest", etc., are all very abstract terms.

As, I'll admit, is morality. But according to my sense of morality, and because I believe in absolute morals, interfering with the affairs of a sovereign nation, even to protect another nation, is wrong, especially if it costs US lives.

[Velociryx]

David, I tend to agree with you more often than not, but sometimes....sometimes you gotta fight fire with fire, bud.

IMO, an isolationist stance would just be wrong for the USA. It's true, we gotta (and I mean GOTTA) learn to do better when it comes to picking our friends in certain parts of the world, but we just can't sit on our duffs inside our borders and pretend the rest of the world isn't out there.

THAT would be morally wrong.

As the big dog, like it or not, we have responsibilities, both to our own interests and to the world community.

To shirk away from that is to willingly become less than we are.

-=Vel=-

[orange]

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

So quit making Germany out to be the victim. They're just as guilty for Versailles as France and England are.

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.

What the hell are you talking about??

"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.

How is it any different??? If the US comes to the defense of any nation it so choses it is justified in doing it if the nation as a democracy feels that it is so justified!

Not at all. You want the right to throw off the authority of the US federal government. You already have that right.

No I don't, like we already said, I can't just become without government intervention in my life. It's just not possible.

Either convince your state to secede, move out, or buy your own island.

State secession has nothing to do with it, and moving out only lands you in another government. How many islands do you know for sale?

[David Floyd]

So quit making Germany out to be the victim. They're just as guilty for Versailles as France and England are.

True, in that their victory conditions probably would have been harsh as well. But that doesn't change the moral indefensibility of the Treaty of Versailles.

What the hell are you talking about??

Just what I said. If we start letting the UN have power over national sovereignty, than the whole concept of national sovereignty and self-rule fall to pieces.

How is it any different??? If the US comes to the defense of any nation it so choses it is justified in doing it if the nation as a democracy feels that it is so justified!

Sure, if you're a moral relativist. I, unfortunately, am not.

No I don't, like we already said, I can't just become without government intervention in my life. It's just not possible.

And I'm telling you IT IS, if you want to badly enough. It'd be hard, though. But still, this is going far off-topic and becoming more and more irrelevant to the main discussion.

State secession has nothing to do with it, and moving out only lands you in another government. How many islands do you know for sale?

I dunno, how much money do you have? Anything is for sale for the right price
Oh, you can't afford it? Your problem, obviously.

Vel,

David, I tend to agree with you more often than not, but sometimes....sometimes you gotta fight fire with fire, bud.

Certainly right, IF AND ONLY IF a foreign nation uses "fire" against us first.

IMO, an isolationist stance would just be wrong for the USA. It's true, we gotta (and I mean GOTTA) learn to do better when it comes to picking our friends in certain parts of the world, but we just can't sit on our duffs inside our borders and pretend the rest of the world isn't out there.

Certainly not. Working diplomatically to promote peace and free-trade is very important. Just leave the force aspect out of it.

As the big dog, like it or not, we have responsibilities, both to our own interests and to the world community.

We have responsibilities? Funny, I don't think they're written down anywhere, or are anything other than what the current government wants them to be

[orange]

Originally posted by David Floyd
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.

"a couple"? My ass. The threat of or use of nukes could turn MANY of them...especially if you consider that only a handful of nations have Nuclear weapons!

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

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

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.

I see, when the debate gets tough, just put the hands over the ears and sing "la la la la la I can't hear you la la la la la". I did read your posts, I'm rebutting them, why don't you try the same.

And by the way, you're talking to a history major I *sincerely* doubt Chris62 would support your view on foreign policy.

*sigh* Why do I even try?

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?

I never said they could, but they could takeover MANY nations IF everyone else minded their own business!

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.

Never once suggested we'd have to take Japan China Russia or England. There are plenty of non-nuclear countries that would fall easily to the use or threat of nuclear attack in the absence of a coallition to control the aggressor. One vs. one MANY MANY nations would lose and could be controlled by the US assuming of course that we lost all morality in our actions.

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.

Who said anything about overextended conquests?? I'm talking about a way for all nations to protect themselves against larger ones WITHOUT having to go through massive casualities in individual wars.

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???

How about US-England. And it's the same thing as protecting your nerd 'friend' from an aggressor because he does your homework for you

[Velociryx]

This whole arena of International Politics can be boiled down to essentially the same thing as lunchtime on the playground at any school yard in America (and prolly elsewhere).

Sometimes a bully shoves his way onto the playground (Iraq)....starts pickin' on a little guy (Kuwait). Little guy calls out for help, so the upper classman sittin on the bleachers eating an apple strides over, calls up some buddies and teaches the punk a quick lesson.

Yeah yeah....I can hear everybody now saying that the US is the bully on this particular playground. ::shrug:: Maybe we have been from time to time.

But we weren't the bully when Hitler came |----| that close to whacking all of mainland Europe and Russia too.

And we weren't the bully in Desert Storm.

We aren't perfect....hell, not by any stretch, but I think our friends know that when the fit hits the shan, they can count on the Americans to get in their and mix it up.

-=Vel=-

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by David Floyd
That's the whole problem! Where do we get the moral authority to play "World Policeman"? Nowhere, I say.

It's a burden of being world hegemon.

A benefit? Certainly. It's the morally right thing to do. It would be morally WRONG to interject into a situation that is none of our business.

I don't believe that morality and foreign policy should mix to any signifigant degree becuase it only leads to problems on either end of the spectrum.

[orange]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Just what I said. If we start letting the UN have power over national sovereignty, than the whole concept of national sovereignty and self-rule fall to pieces.

I didn't say make the world one giant direct democracy...that's what your first quote implied.

Sure, if you're a moral relativist. I, unfortunately, am not.

And I'm telling you IT IS, if you want to badly enough. It'd be hard, though. But still, this is going far off-topic and becoming more and more irrelevant to the main discussion.

Fine, we can ditch this, but you and I both know it is not possible in this world and especially in this country to separate yourself from any government intervention.

Oh, you can't afford it? Your problem, obviously.

Isn't that just like holding a gun to my head and forcing me to follow the law of a government I support simply because I don't have the money to pay for an island?

[Ramo]

Come on DF, this is a crazy (and not particularly libertarian) position.

Just because some sociopath calls himself a "state" doesn't magically make stopping his gang of thugs from committing more murders "immoral."

Quite simply, it's counterintuitive to give any liberties to coercive organizations such as states, much less more liberties than individuals.

Not that I agree with most of our policy towards Iraq.

[David Floyd]

orange,

"a couple"? My ass. The threat of or use of nukes could turn MANY of them...especially if you consider that only a handful of nations have Nuclear weapons!

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

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

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.

I see, when the debate gets tough, just put the hands over the ears and sing "la la la la la I can't hear you la la la la la". I did read your posts, I'm rebutting them, why don't you try the same.[/quote]

You certainly did not rebut anything I said. Simple fact: the United States has the capability to sealift, at most, ONE division with its equipment, using ALL of our shipping, at a time. Is 1 division enough to conquer and hold down a nation? I doubt it seriously, at least when you get bigger than Costa Rica. We couldn't even take and hold New Zealand or Cuba with 1 division, to say nothing of Australia, for example.
And using the argument of "if you don't surrender, we nuke you" is bull**** because, real-world, the US military would not respond to such an order.

And if you're a history major, then you should know that even if Germany defeated Russia, they would have been locked up in guerilla war in the Urals and beyond for DECADES, with hundreds of thousands of soldiers perpetually stationed in Russia to hold down the population

I never said they could, but they could takeover MANY nations IF everyone else minded their own business!

Of course, another relevant point is that if we decided we HAD TO INVADE, say, Costa Rica, there's nothing the world could do about it militarily. But in any case, my point still stands that internal unrest combined with overextension of limited forces and lack of logistical infrastructure would doom a US war of conquest to failure pretty damn quickly.

How about US-England. And it's the same thing as protecting your nerd 'friend' from an aggressor because he does your homework for you

US-England is still not a husband-wife relationship. It has no bearing on the example of protecting your wife.

Vel,

Best way I can reply to you is to concede that while we were not the original aggressors, it did not become our business simply by virtue of a large nation attacking a smaller one.

DinoDoc,

It's a burden of being world hegemon.

Than maybe our established position of world hegemon is wrong as well.

I don't believe that morality and foreign policy should mix to any signifigant degree becuase it only leads to problems on either end of the spectrum.

Foreign policy and morality are irrevocably mixed, IMO.

[Velociryx]

David, quite true.

It became our business when the small nation cried out for help.

-=Vel=-

[David Floyd]

I didn't say make the world one giant direct democracy...that's what your first quote implied.

It's the impression I got from reading what you said.

Isn't that just like holding a gun to my head and forcing me to follow the law of a government I support simply because I don't have the money to pay for an island?

You have legal recourse to change the government, such as voting or leaving. Conversely, if the government is actually infringing on your rights, and legal recourse fails, you have the right to use force.

Ramo,

Just because some sociopath calls himself a "state" doesn't magically make stopping his gang of thugs from committing more murders "immoral."

Quite simply, it's counterintuitive to give any liberties to coercive organizations such as states, much less more liberties than individuals.

Ah, but the argument is not over the morality of murder, it's over the morality of sovereign nations interfering with one another.

[orange]

Originally posted by David Floyd
orange,

You certainly did not rebut anything I said. Simple fact: the United States has the capability to sealift, at most, ONE division with its equipment, using ALL of our shipping, at a time.

Where exactly did you pull that factoid from?

Is 1 division enough to conquer and hold down a nation? I doubt it seriously, at least when you get bigger than Costa Rica.

You need to forget about "big nations" and look at what I'm saying.

If the US wants to conquer Central America, we could do it easily. If 15 other, larger countries with strong diplomatic and economic ties to those Central American nations want to protect them, why are you against that? They are not being morally wrong by protecting their allies.

We couldn't even take and hold New Zealand or Cuba with 1 division, to say nothing of Australia, for example.

I really think your figures are way off.

And using the argument of "if you don't surrender, we nuke you" is bull**** because, real-world, the US military would not respond to such an order.

The US as it is right now would not, but the US under a dictator or some other country with a dictator and nuclear weapons COULD. Don't you see? This isn't about how the world is, this is about how the world would be if everyone simply minded their own business and let dictators and madmen do what they wanted.

And if you're a history major, then you should know that even if Germany defeated Russia, they would have been locked up in guerilla war in the Urals and beyond for DECADES, with hundreds of thousands of soldiers perpetually stationed in Russia to hold down the population

I do know this, which is why I never said that Germany could invade and hold Russia You keep putting words in my mouth.

Of course, another relevant point is that if we decided we HAD TO INVADE, say, Costa Rica, there's nothing the world could do about it militarily.

You say this after you get done saying that the US doesn't have the power to fight New Zealand?

But in any case, my point still stands that internal unrest combined with overextension of limited forces and lack of logistical infrastructure would doom a US war of conquest to failure pretty damn quickly.

US-England is still not a husband-wife relationship. It has no bearing on the example of protecting your wife.

I don't see why not, it's none of the husband's business, unless of course you believe that his wife is his property

[David Floyd]

It became our business when the small nation cried out for help.

Sorry, I disagree

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Djugashvili

Hmm so this justifies the starvation deaths of 500,000+ Iraqi children due to sanctions over the years?

No, nothing can justify Saddam's crimes against his own people. His weapon programs come first, then his own ethnic group, and whatever is left for the Shiites and others makes for good leftist propoganda in the west. Why aren't the people in the North who receive the same amounts of money from the oil for food program starving? Because they aren't using that money to re-arm and build WMDs.